BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort expert witness Richton Park Illinois hospital construction expert witness Richton Park Illinois industrial building expert witness Richton Park Illinois multi family housing expert witness Richton Park Illinois parking structure expert witness Richton Park Illinois low-income housing expert witness Richton Park Illinois Medical building expert witness Richton Park Illinois production housing expert witness Richton Park Illinois mid-rise construction expert witness Richton Park Illinois custom home expert witness Richton Park Illinois landscaping construction expert witness Richton Park Illinois high-rise construction expert witness Richton Park Illinois townhome construction expert witness Richton Park Illinois retail construction expert witness Richton Park Illinois concrete tilt-up expert witness Richton Park Illinois condominium expert witness Richton Park Illinois structural steel construction expert witness Richton Park Illinois tract home expert witness Richton Park Illinois condominiums expert witness Richton Park Illinois housing expert witness Richton Park Illinois institutional building expert witness Richton Park Illinois office building expert witness Richton Park Illinois
    Richton Park Illinois structural engineering expert witnessesRichton Park Illinois slope failure expert witnessRichton Park Illinois structural concrete expertRichton Park Illinois fenestration expert witnessRichton Park Illinois building expertRichton Park Illinois construction code expert witnessRichton Park Illinois forensic architect
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Richton Park, Illinois

    Illinois Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB4873 Pending: The Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act provides that a construction professional shall be liable to a homeowner for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the professional and his or her agents, employees, or subcontractors. This bill requires the service of notice to the professional of the complained-of defect in the construction by the homeowner prior to commencement of a lawsuit. Allows the professional to make an offer of repair or settlement and to rescind this offer if the claimant fails to respond within 30 days.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Richton Park Illinois

    No state license required for general contracting. License required for roofing.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    SouthWest Suburban Home Builders Association
    Local # 1432
    10767 W 163rd Pl
    Orland Park, IL 60467

    Richton Park Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Northern Illinois Home Builders Association Inc
    Local # 1434
    3695 Darlene Ct Ste 102
    Aurora, IL 60504

    Richton Park Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Kankakee
    Local # 1445
    221 S Schuyler Ave Ste B
    Kankakee, IL 60901

    Richton Park Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Fox Valley
    Local # 1431
    PO Box 1146
    Saint Charles, IL 60174

    Richton Park Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Chicago
    Local # 1425
    5999 S. New Wilke Rd Ste 104
    Rolling Meadows, IL 60008

    Richton Park Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Peoria
    Local # 1455
    1599 N Main Street
    East Peoria, IL 61611

    Richton Park Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of the Greater Rockford Area
    Local # 1465
    631 N Longwood St Suite 102
    Rockford, IL 61107

    Richton Park Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Richton Park Illinois


    Delays in Filing Lead to Dismissal in Moisture Intrusion Lawsuit

    Important Environmental Insurance Ruling Issued In Protracted Insurance-Coverage Dispute

    North Carolina Soil & Groundwater Case to be Heard by U.S. Supreme Court

    Canada Home Resales Post First Fall in Eight Months

    South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

    Erasing Any Doubt: Arizona FED Actions Do Not Accrue Until Formal Demand for Possession is Tendered

    Sacramento Army Corps District Projects Get $2.1 Billion in Supplemental Appropriation

    Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor's Employee

    Location, Location, Location—Even in Construction Liens

    Alabama Appeals Court Rules Unexpected and Unintended Property Damage is an Occurrence

    Failure to Comply with Sprinkler Endorsement Bars Coverage for Fire Damage

    Construction Defect Leads to Death of Worker

    Benford’s Law: A Seldom Used Weapon in Forensic Accounting

    Specific Performance of an Option Contract to Purchase Real Property is Barred Absent Agreement on All Material Terms

    Trump Sues Casinos to Get Conditions Fixed or Name Off

    Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned

    A UK Bridge That Is a Lesson on How to Build Infrastructure

    Blackstone to Buy Chicago’s Willis Tower for $1.3 Billion

    Environmental Law Violations: When you Should Hire a Lawyer

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports CDCCF Charity at 2014 WCC Seminar

    CSLB Joint Venture Licenses – Providing Contractors With The Means To Expand Their Businesses

    Excess-Escape Other Insurance Provision Unenforceable to Avoid Defense Cost Contribution Despite Placement in Policy’s Coverage Grant

    California Supreme Court Allows Claim Under Unfair Competition Statute To Proceed

    Lis Pendens – Recordation and Dissolution

    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

    NTSB Cites Design Errors in Fatal Bridge Collapse

    California Supreme Court Protects California Policyholders for Intentional Acts of Employees

    Preserving your Rights to Secure Payment on Construction Projects (with Examples)

    Is Construction Defect Litigation a Cause for Lack of Condos in Minneapolis?

    2017 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Potential Pitfalls Under the Contract Disputes Act for Federal Government Contractors

    Insurance Company Must Show that Lead Came from Building Materials

    New ANSI Requirements for Fireplace Screens

    The Most Expensive Travel Construction Flops

    Purely “Compensatory” Debts Owed by Attorneys to Clients (Which Are Not Disciplinary or Punitive Fees Imposed by the State Bar) Are Dischargeable In Bankruptcy

    Denial of Coverage For Bodily Injury After Policy Period Does Not Violate Public Policy

    Loss Ensuing from Alleged Faulty Workmanship is Covered

    Acceptable Worksite: New City of Seattle Specification Provisions Now In Effect

    Back Posting with Thoughts on Lien Waivers

    Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

    Modification: Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor’s Employee

    Balfour in Talks With Carillion About $5 Billion Merger

    Homebuilder Predictions for Tallahassee

    Personal Injury Claims – The Basics

    Court Upholds Denial of Collapse Coverage Where Building Still Stands

    Florida Court of Appeals Rejects Insurer’s Attempt to Intervene in Underlying Lawsuit to Submit Special Interrogatories

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Indemnity Coverage For Damage Caused by Named Insured

    Preventing Costly Litigation Through Your Construction Contract

    Appeals Court Finds Manuscript Additional Insured Endorsements Ambiguous Regarding Completed Operations Coverage for Additional Insured

    Settlement Reached in Bridge Failure Lawsuit
    Corporate Profile

    RICHTON PARK ILLINOIS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Richton Park, Illinois Construction Expert Witness Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Richton Park's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Richton Park, Illinois

    Illinois Supreme Court Limits Reach of Implied Warranty Claims Against Contractors

    April 10, 2019 —
    In a recent decision, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a purchaser of a newly constructed home could not assert a claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability against a subcontractor where the subcontractor had no contractual relationship with the purchaser. Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n v. Champion Aluminum Corp., 2018 IL 122022, ¶ 1. The decision overruled Minton v. The Richards Group of Chicago, which held that a purchaser who “has no recourse to the builder-vendor and has sustained loss due to the faulty and latent defect in their new home caused by the subcontractor” could assert a claim of a breach of the warranty of habitability against the subcontractor. 116 Ill. App. 3d 852, 855 (1983). In Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n, the plaintiff alleged that the condo building had several latent defects which made individual units and common areas unfit for habitation. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 3. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that privity should not be a factor in determining whether a claim for a breach of the warranty of habitability can be asserted. Id. at ¶ 19. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that claims for a breach warranty of habitability should not be governed by contract law but should instead be governed by tort law analogous to application of strict liability. Id. The Court reasoned that the economic loss rule, as articulated in Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d 69, 91 (1982), refuted the plaintiff’s argument that the implied warranty of habitability should be covered by tort law. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 20. Under the economic loss rule, a plaintiff “cannot recover for solely economic loss under the tort theories of strict liability, negligence, and innocent misrepresentation.” National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d at 91. The Court explained that the rule prevented plaintiffs from turning a contractual claim into a tort claim. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 21. The Court further noted that contractual privity is required for a claim of economic loss, and an economic loss claim is not limited to strict liability claims. Id. Because the plaintiff’s claim was solely for an economic loss, it was a contractual claim in nature; therefore, the Court concluded that “the implied warranty of habitability cannot be characterized as a tort.” Id. at ¶ 22. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Thomas Cronin, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Cronin may be contacted at tcronin@grsm.com

    Important New Reporting Requirement for Some Construction Defect Settlements

    April 17, 2019 —
    In response to a tragic balcony collapse incident where the public later learned the contractor had paid millions to settlement defect cases in the preceding years, the California legislature passed, the state contractor’s license board is now implementing, a public disclosure requirement for certain construction defect claims. The disclosure requirement is triggered by a judgment (which is not a new requirement), an arbitration award, or a settlement of certain construction defect claims. These requirements are codified at California Business & Professions Code sections 7071.20-22. What types of Projects: This requirement applies only if all of the following apply:
    A) Residential B) Multi-Family; and C) Rental property
    Limitations on Claims – The reporting requirement only applies if all of the following are true:
    A) The claim is against a CSLB licensee (not a design professional) acting in the capacity of a contractor; B) The claim is for a structural defect; C) The total claim is valued at $1 million (not including investigation costs); D) SB800 does not apply; E) The action was filed after January 1, 2019; and F) If a lawsuit, the case was designated complex by the courts (which may not apply if only contractor is sued).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ian Williamson, Gordon & Rees
    Mr. Williamson may be contacted at igwilliamson@grsm.com

    Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

    February 11, 2019 —
    These days in construction, and other pursuits, teaming agreements have become a great method for large and small contractors to work together to take advantage of various contract and job requirements from minority participation to veteran ownership. With the proliferation of these agreements, parties must be careful in how they draft the terms of these agreements. Without proper drafting, the parties risk unenforceability of the teaming agreement in the evewnt of a dispute. One potential pitfall in drafting is an “agreement to agree” or an agreement to negotiate a separate contract in the future. This type of pitfall was illustrated in the case of InDyne Inc. v. Beacon Occupational Health & Safety Services Inc. out of the Eastern District of Virginia. In this case, InDyne and Beacon entered into a teaming agreement that provided that InDyne as Prime would seek to use Beacon, the Sub, in the event that InDyne was awarded a contract using Beacon’s numbers. The teaming agreement further provided:
    The agreement shall remain in effect until the first of the following shall occur: … (g) inability of the Prime and the Sub, after negotiating in good faith, to reach agreement on the terms of a subcontract offered by the Prime, in accordance with this agreement.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Legislative Update on Bills of Note (Updated Post-Adjournment)

    March 27, 2019 —
    In two prior posts, one specifically relating to a bill that was introduced to apply a statute of limitatons on state agencies for construction projects and one more general, I discussed some of the legislation pending in the Virginia General Assembly that could be of interest to construction professionals. This post will update the status of these bills and add one that I neglected to highlight in the prior posts. I’ll begin with the oversight. HB 2218 Makes the unlawful and unlicensed practice of contracting, real estate brokering, or real estate sales, in connection with a consumer transaction, unlawful under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. In short, it makes explicit what was implicit, namely that contractors that perform work without a license are in violation of the VCPA. This bill has passed the house by unanimous vote and is in committee at the Senate. UPDATE– As of February 20, 2019, this bill has passed both houses, all that is left is the paperwork. Post Adjournment Update: This bill passed and awaits Governor’s signature. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Tests Find Pollution From N.C. Coal Ash Site Hit by Florence Within Acceptable Levels

    October 30, 2018 —
    RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Despite the gray muck that fouled the Cape Fear River near a Wilmington power plant after Hurricane Florence, water tests so far show heavy metals contained in coal ash are within state standards, North Carolina environmental officials said Thursday. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    How Your Disgruntled Client Can Turn Into Your Very Own Car Crash! (and How to Avoid It) (Law Tips)

    January 21, 2019 —
    Over the summer, I was involved in a car crash. It was *not* my fault– heck, I wasn’t even driving but riding shotgun. But it wasn’t my husband’s fault either. A guy pulling out of a parking lot was watching the traffic coming up the road, but failed to see our car sitting in the same intersection waiting to turn into the same parking lot. He ran right into us. It may not look like much, but the panels were so damaged it cost almost $9k in damages, over a month of car rental fees, and a LOT of aggravation on our part. The guy who hit us was very nice, apologized, and was concerned if we were injured. His insurance company ultimately paid for all of the damage. However– it wasn’t he who suddenly got a new part time job– that was me. I had to spend lots of time with police, insurance representatives, auto body mechanics, rental car places, you name it. If you’ve ever been in an accident, you know the headache involved. In fact, I have had 2 other accidents over the years (again, neither of which were my fault– I think I’m just a beacon for bad drivers?). One of those accidents was a 4 car accident– a driver hit my car, pushing it into the car ahead, which went into the car ahead of that. In that accident, my car was actually totaled. Fun times! How is this relevant to your life as an architect or engineer? If you stay in the game (that is, the design field) long enough, chances are, you will, at some point, end up dealing with disgruntled clients. One of those clients may even file a lawsuit against you. Or, for that matter, you may end up getting sued by another party involved in your construction projects– one that you don’t even have a contract with. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    Texas Court Requires Insurer to Defend GC Despite Breach of Contract Exclusion

    December 19, 2018 —
    In Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. v. Slay Engineering, et al.,1 a Texas federal court ruled in favor of a general contractor, finding that its insurer had a duty to defend it in a construction defect case filed by the owner. The decision adds more clarity to the interpretation of the subcontractor exception to the “Damage to Your Work” exclusion as well as the Breach of Contract exclusion, which has been the subject of several cases coming out of Texas over the past decade. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ashley L. Cooper, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Cooper may be contacted at alc@sdvlaw.com

    AB 3018: Amendments to the Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements on California Public Projects

    February 18, 2019 —
    What California Contractors Need To Know About AB 3018 California contractors used to face limited consequences for non-compliance with the state’s skilled and trained workforce requirements on public works projects. A sea-change to the statutory landscape went into effect on January 1, 2019 as a result of Assembly Bill No. 3018 (“AB 3018”).1 The Code re-defines what constitutes a skilled/trained workforce by eliminating existing exemptions, strengthens monthly reporting guidelines and agency oversight, and empowers the Labor Commissioner and public agencies with enforcement tools that include monetary penalties and debarment. Contractors who fail to institute a program to comply with AB 3018’s reporting requirements do so at their peril. What Does The 30% Requirement Mean? Previously, in order to comply with the skilled workforce requirements2, 30% of skilled journeypersons had to be graduates of an apprenticeship program, except for certain listed trades which were exempt from the apprenticeship percentage requirement3. AB 3018 eliminates this exception for the listed occupations and requires 30% of all trades to be comprised of apprenticeship program graduates. Reprinted courtesy of Alex R. Baghdassarian, Peckar & Abramson and Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Baghdassarian may be contacted at Abaghdassarian@pecklaw.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of