BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing expert witness Richton Park Illinois landscaping construction expert witness Richton Park Illinois Subterranean parking expert witness Richton Park Illinois casino resort expert witness Richton Park Illinois concrete tilt-up expert witness Richton Park Illinois low-income housing expert witness Richton Park Illinois industrial building expert witness Richton Park Illinois parking structure expert witness Richton Park Illinois tract home expert witness Richton Park Illinois retail construction expert witness Richton Park Illinois housing expert witness Richton Park Illinois Medical building expert witness Richton Park Illinois office building expert witness Richton Park Illinois townhome construction expert witness Richton Park Illinois custom homes expert witness Richton Park Illinois condominiums expert witness Richton Park Illinois condominium expert witness Richton Park Illinois institutional building expert witness Richton Park Illinois mid-rise construction expert witness Richton Park Illinois custom home expert witness Richton Park Illinois hospital construction expert witness Richton Park Illinois high-rise construction expert witness Richton Park Illinois
    Richton Park Illinois expert witness commercial buildingsRichton Park Illinois expert witness concrete failureRichton Park Illinois construction code expert witnessRichton Park Illinois architecture expert witnessRichton Park Illinois engineering expert witnessRichton Park Illinois architect expert witnessRichton Park Illinois OSHA expert witness construction
    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


    Understanding the Details: Suing Architects and Engineers Can Get Technical

    The Comcast Project is Not Likely to Be Shut Down Too Long

    Failure to Comply with Sprinkler Endorsement Bars Coverage for Fire Damage

    Massachusetts High Court to Decide if Insurers Can Recoup Defense Costs

    Allegations Confirm Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Diggin’ Ain’t Easy: Remember to Give Notice Before You Excavate in California

    An Expert’s Qualifications are Important

    Quick Note: Subcontractor Payment Bond = Common Law Payment Bond

    Equities Favor Subrogating Insurer Over Subcontractor That Performed Defective Work

    Bound by Group Builders, Federal District Court Finds No Occurrence

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    EPA Announces that January 2017 Revised RMP Rules are Now Effective

    Floors Collapse at Russian University in St. Petersburg

    Homeowners Sued for Failing to Disclose Defects

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Cover Collapse Fails

    How Many New Home Starts are from Teardowns?

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    Naughty or Nice. Contractor Receives Two Lumps of Coal in Administrative Dispute

    Contractor Gets Green Light to Fix Two Fractured Girders at Salesforce Transit Center

    New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

    Building Inspector Refuses to State Why Apartments Condemned

    Manhattan Home Prices Jump to a Record as Buyers Compete

    The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation

    OSHA Extends Temporary Fall Protection Rules

    Slowing Home Sales Show U.S. Market Lacks Momentum: Economy

    Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks: The Spearin Doctrine and Design-Build Projects

    The Hidden Price of Outdated Damage Prevention Laws: Part I

    Building and Landscape Standards Enacted in Response to the Governor's Mandatory Water Restrictions Dealing with the Drought and Possible Effects of El Niño

    Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure

    Ninth Circuit Finds Policy’s Definition of “Policy Period” Fatal to Insurer’s “Related Claims” Argument

    Tokyo's Skyline Set to See 45 New Skyscrapers by 2020 Olympics

    Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    Sensors for Smarter Construction – Interview with Laura Kassovic of MbientLab

    The General Assembly Seems Ready to Provide Some Consistency in Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

    Quick Note: Do Your Homework When it Comes to Selecting Your Arbitrator

    What are Section 8(f) Agreements?

    CDJ’s #3 Topic of the Year: Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2014)

    Construction Slow to Begin in Superstorm Sandy Cases

    Is Drone Aerial Photography Really Best for Your Construction Projects?

    Millennials Want Houses, Just Like Everybody Else

    Prison Time and Restitution for Construction Fraud

    Gen Xers Choose to Rent rather than Buy

    Federal Court Strikes Down 'Persuader' Rule

    New Jersey Appeals Court Ruled Suits Stand Despite HOA Bypassing Bylaw

    First-Time Homebuyers Make Biggest Share of Deals in 17 Years

    What is a Subordination Agreement?

    Assignment of Construction Defect Claims Not Covered

    California MCLE Seminar at BHA Sacramento July 11th

    Construction Client Advisory: The Power of the Bonded Stop Notice Extends to Expended Construction Funds
    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. Drawing 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

    Dealing with Abandoned Property After Foreclosure

    April 10, 2019 —
    California landlords must follow very specific steps before disposing of property that is clearly abandoned, left on real estate which has been the subject of court proceedings such as eviction or foreclosure, or otherwise left behind. Following the statutory procedures relating to abandoned property protects landlords from potential liability for an improper “conversion.” Former tenants/owners and others “reasonably believed” to be owners of the apparently abandoned personal property must be given proper written notice of the right to reclaim the abandoned property. The tenant is presumed to be the owner of any “records” remaining on the property. The California Code of Civil Procedure provides a template for such notice. The notice to be provided to former tenants/owners must be in “substantially” the same form provided in the California Code of Civil Procedure and must contain the following information:
    1. A description of the abandoned property in a manner reasonably adequate to permit the owner of the property to identify it;
    2. The location where the tenant can claim the property;
    3. The time frame that the tenant has to claim the property. The date specified in the notice shall be a date not less than fifteen (15) days after the notice is personally delivered or, if mailed, not less than eighteen (18) days after the notice is deposited in the mail;
    4. A statement that reasonable storage costs will be charged to the tenant/owner and the tenant/owner must pay those costs before claiming the property; and
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Finding of No Coverage Overturned Due to Lack of Actual Policy

    March 18, 2019 —
    The Appellate Division overturned a verdict for the insurer when the actual policy was never introduced at trial. Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. B&F Land Dev. Corp., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 264 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan 16, 2018). The decedent was killed when he fell through a skylight while working on a premises owned by B&F Land Development Corporation. The estate sued B&F for wrongful death. B&F tendered to its carrier, Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual (PLM). PLM issued a reservations of rights. It later denied coverage because the location of the loss was not a location listed on the policy, an exclusion barred coverage for bodily injury arising out of B&F's ongoing operations conducted by it or on its behalf, and the loss was not reported to PLM as soon as practicable. PLM sued B&F and the estate for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify. A default judgment was entered against B&F after it failed to answer. Trial proceeded against the estate Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    The California Legislature Return the Power Back to the People by Passing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018

    January 02, 2019 —
    Introduction Data breaches and social media hacks are becoming increasingly common stories on the news cycle. Meanwhile, companies have made fortunes on unsuspecting individuals by selling information gathered on the user. Every internet user has wondered why a pop-up ad or banner on an unrelated website relates to something you purchased or searched for "that one time. The California legislature has decided to return some power back to the people with the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. California is the first state to introduce privacy protection for individuals personal data and could pave the way for other states to follow suit in the near future. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 On June 28, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 ("the Act"). The California Legislature eagerly passed the Act, which comes into effect on January 1, 2020, granting broad new privacy rights to "consumers" and enforcing requirements on the protection of their personal data allowing consumers the right to take back control of their personal information. A "consumer" is defined as a "resident of California as defined by California's personal income tax regulations. "Personal information" pursuant to the Act is defined as "information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household." Personal information is generally recognized in California as information that can identify a specific individual. The Act also includes information that can be used to identify a household. Provisions of the Act Pursuant to the Act, consumers are given the right to know upon request if their personal information is disclosed, and to whom it is disclosed, the right to know what personal information has been collected about them by a business, the right to object to the sale of their personal information, the right to obtain data collected about them, the right to require businesses to obliterate their personal information, and the right to be given equal service and pricing from businesses, including equal prices and quality of goods or services. The Act forbids discrimination by businesses against consumers for exercising their privacy rights pursuant to the Act. Businesses are, however, permitted to charge different prices or provide different quality of service to consumers if the difference is "reasonably related to the value provided to the consumer by the consumer’s data." Additionally, businesses must allow consumers to exercise their rights by providing to consumers toll-free telephone numbers and/or websites to request such information or privacy. If a consumer sends a verified request for information to a business, the business subsequently has 45 days to give the consumer the requested information from the preceding 12 months with no charge to the consumer. Who Must Comply with the Act The Act will apply to for-profit businesses that do business in the State of California, deal with personal information of California residents, and either·(1) have more than $25 million in annual gross revenues, or (2) receive or disclose more than 50,000 California residents' personal information, or(3) derive 50% or greater of California residents' annual revenues from selling their personal information. Who is Exempted from Compliance with the Act A for-profit company, a small company, and/or a company that does not derive large amounts of personal information and does not share a brand with an affiliate covered by the Act is exempted from complying with the Act. Additionally, a company is exempted from compliance with the Act "if every aspect of . . . commercial conduct takes place wholly outside of California," meaning: (1) the personal information was collected from the consumer while they were outside California, (2) no sale of their personal information took place in California, and (3) there was no sale of personal information that was collected while the consumer was in California. Impact According to 2017 estimates, California's population totaled approximately 39 million people. Clearly the Act will affect an incredibly large amount of people considering it concerns the most populous state in America. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, which is being compared to the EU General Data Protection Regulation for its all-encompassing method and resilient privacy protections is also speculated to have an impact on businesses throughout the nation and around the world. While the costs will likely go up for companies to do business in California, the transparency and trust earned by business and gained by consumers in this new landscape could potential overcome the initial costs to provide these required services. Perhaps most importantly however, is if California consumers decide to take advantage of the new protections, they will no longer have to wonder what for-profit businesses are doing with their data. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, David A. Napper and Lana Halavi Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colombia's $15 Billion Road Plan Bounces Back From Bribe Scandal

    June 03, 2019 —
    Colombia’s $15 billion highway program has come roaring back to life as laws to protect investors help confidence recover from a massive kickback scandal that had paralyzed the sector. Public works expanded 8.5% in the first quarter from a year earlier, a rare bright spot in an economy that has struggled to grow since oil prices crashed nearly five years ago. Colombia ranks 102 out of 140 nations in road infrastructure quality, behind Bolivia and Sierra Leone, according to World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness report. Fixing that problem, which has bedeviled Colombian industry and agriculture for centuries, can boost growth for a generation, the government believes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Oscar Medina, Bloomberg

    Expansion of Statutes of Limitations and Repose in K-12 and Municipal Construction Contracts

    March 27, 2019 —
    The purpose of this whitepaper is to bring attention to a trend in K-12 and municipal construction contracts, which expands the time periods for law suits against construction professionals. Introduction and Background Under Colorado statute, the period of time within which a legal action for construction defects may be brought against a construction professional in Colorado is two years from when the claimant (or its predecessor in interest) discovers or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the physical manifestations of a defect (the “Statute of Limitations”), but in no case may an action be brought more than six years after substantial completion of the improvement, unless the claim arises in the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion, in which event the action may be brought within two years of such date, i.e., up to eight years after substantial completion (the “Statute of Repose”). See C.R.S. § 13-80-104. While the triggering events differ for the Statute of Limitations and Statue of Repose, the periods are intended to run concurrently to limit the period of time an action may be brought against construction professionals for construction defects to, at most, eight years after substantial completion. Importantly, these limitations periods may be expanded by agreement. Prior to 1986, Colorado law provided for a 10-year Statute of Repose. However, in 1986, Colorado’s legislature shortened the Statute of Repose time limit to the current six (or up to eight) year period. In 1986, Colorado also redefined the date the claim arises from the date the defect was discovered or should have been discovered to the date the physical manifestation of a defect was discovered or should have been discovered. Therefore, after 1986, the two-year limitations period could begin to run when a claimant should have discovered the manifestation of a defect, even if the claimant did not recognize that a defect existed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Will There Be Construction Defect Legislation Introduced in the 2019 Colorado Legislative Session?

    March 18, 2019 —
    With the 2019 Colorado legislative session well underway, the construction industry is waiting with bated breath to see what the Democrat controlled legislature might do with respect to construction defect legislation. In recent years, having a split legislature has prevented any attempts to roll back positive changes in the law, either from the legislature or Colorado courts, that have been hailed by the construction community. This year, odds are good that we will see at least one bill similar to two introduced last year that would hinder the ability to have disputes decided by binding arbitration. While not full frontal assaults on the Colorado Supreme Court decision in the Vallagio case, HB18-1261, the “Colorado Arbitration Fairness Act,” and HB 18-1262, the “Arbitration Services Provider Transparency Act,” would have negatively impacted the ability to resolve any type of case through arbitration. Anything that prevents the resolution of construction defect cases through arbitration will increase the judgments and settlements in such cases, ultimately increasing the costs of construction and for insurance for those in the industry. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Hunton Insurance Partner, Larry Bracken, Elected to the American College of Coverage Counsel

    March 04, 2019 —
    Lawrence J. Bracken II, a partner in Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Coverage practice group, has been elected to the American College of Coverage Counsel (ACCC), which is the preeminent association of U.S. and Canadian lawyers who represent the interests of insurers and policyholders. The ACCC’s mission is to advance the creative, ethical and efficient resolution of insurance coverage and extracontractual disputes; to enhance the civility and quality of the practice of insurance law; to provide peer-reviewed scholarship; and to improve the relationships among the members of our profession. The ACCC engages in a rigorous vetting process prior to inviting a lawyer to become a fellow. ACCC fellows include many of the most prominent members of the insurance law bar. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
    Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

    Insurers in New Jersey Secure a Victory on Water Damage Claims, But How Big a Victory Likely Remains to be Seen

    April 03, 2019 —
    Property insurance policies commonly cover water damage caused by an accidental discharge or leakage of water from an on-site plumbing system and commonly exclude water damage caused by a sewer backup. So it’s not surprising that the cause of water damage is a common battleground between policyholders and insurers. In Salil v. Ohio Security Insurance Co., 2018 WL 6272930 (N.J. App. Div. Dec. 3, 2018), insurers scored a victory when the court held that the release of water and sewage into a restaurant was subject to a $25,000 sublimit for water damage caused by a sewer backup. But claims adjusters and policyholders confronted with water damage claims in New Jersey will no doubt continue to do battle over whether the Salil decision was a decisive victory for insurers or a limited one. In Salil, the insured landlord leased its building to a restaurant operator. After the insured’s tenant reported water and odor at the restaurant, the insured contacted a plumber, who informed the insured that a clog in the restaurant’s toilet caused Category 3 water to flow into the restaurant. The insured allegedly sustained approximately $160,000 in restoration costs and loss of business income. The plumber used a snake to clear the sewer line to remedy the issue. The restoration company confirmed the cause of the loss was a sewer back up. On this basis, the insurer determined that the cause of loss was a sewer backup. The policy excluded coverage for water damage caused by a sewer back-up, but an endorsement restored that coverage, subject to a $25,000 sub-limit for “direct physical loss or damaged caused by water… which backs up into a building or structure through sewers or drains which are directly connected to a sanitary sewer or septic system.” Pursuant to this endorsement, the insurer paid its $25,000 sublimit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com