• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure expert witness Sun City Kansas condominium expert witness Sun City Kansas landscaping construction expert witness Sun City Kansas custom homes expert witness Sun City Kansas condominiums expert witness Sun City Kansas high-rise construction expert witness Sun City Kansas townhome construction expert witness Sun City Kansas industrial building expert witness Sun City Kansas hospital construction expert witness Sun City Kansas low-income housing expert witness Sun City Kansas retail construction expert witness Sun City Kansas Subterranean parking expert witness Sun City Kansas structural steel construction expert witness Sun City Kansas office building expert witness Sun City Kansas Medical building expert witness Sun City Kansas custom home expert witness Sun City Kansas mid-rise construction expert witness Sun City Kansas casino resort expert witness Sun City Kansas tract home expert witness Sun City Kansas production housing expert witness Sun City Kansas concrete tilt-up expert witness Sun City Kansas multi family housing expert witness Sun City Kansas
    Sun City Kansas roofing and waterproofing expert witnessSun City Kansas slope failure expert witnessSun City Kansas construction claims expert witnessSun City Kansas structural engineering expert witnessesSun City Kansas defective construction expertSun City Kansas building code compliance expert witnessSun City Kansas testifying construction expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Sun City, Kansas

    Kansas Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB 2294 requires a claimant to serve a written notice of claim upon the contractor prior to filing a lawsuit. The law places deadlines on the contractor to serve notice on each subcontractor (15 days) and provide a written response to the claimant (30 days). It permits the claimant to file a lawsuit without further notice if the contractor disputes the claim, does not respond to the notice, does not complete work on the defect on a timely basis or does not make a payment in the time allowed.

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Sun City Kansas

    No state license for general contracting. All businesses must register with the Department of Revenue.

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Wichita Area Builders Association
    Local # 1780
    730 N Main St
    Wichita, KS 67203

    Sun City Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Hutchinson
    Local # 1720
    PO Box 2209
    Hutchinson, KS 67504

    Sun City Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    McPherson Area Contractors Association
    Local # 1735
    PO Box 38
    McPherson, KS 67460
    Sun City Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Salina
    Local # 1750
    2125 Crawford Place
    Salina, KS 67401

    Sun City Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Lawrence Home Builders Association
    Local # 1723
    PO Box 3490
    Lawrence, KS 66046

    Sun City Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Topeka Home Builders Association
    Local # 1765
    1505 SW Fairlawn Rd
    Topeka, KS 66604

    Sun City Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Kansas Home Builders Association
    Local # 1700
    212 SW 8th Ave Ste 201
    Topeka, KS 66603

    Sun City Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Sun City Kansas

    Haight Lawyers Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019

    Determining Duty to Defend in Wisconsin Does Not Include Extrinsic Evidence

    And the Cyber-Beat Goes On. Yet Another Cyber Regulatory Focus for Insurers

    Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Protecting the Integrity of Referral Sources under Florida Statute s. 542.335

    Insurance Lawyers Recognized by JD Supra 2020 Readers' Choice Awards

    Former SNC-Lavalin CEO Now Set for Trial in Bribe Case

    What Should Be in Every Construction Agreement

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    Seeking the Urban Lifestyle in the Suburbs

    No Coverage Under Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    Traub Lieberman Partners Lenhardt and Smith Obtain Directed Verdict in Broward County Failed Repair Sinkhole Trial

    Excess Policy Triggered Once Retention Paid, Even if Loss Not Covered By Excess

    Trucks looking for Defects Create Social Media Frenzy

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    Privacy In Pandemic: Senators Announce Covid-19 Data Privacy Bill

    U.S. Housing Starts Exceed Estimates After a Stronger December

    Condominium Association Responsibility to Resolve Construction Defect Claims

    Will the Hidden Cracks in the Bay Bridge Cause Problems During an Earthquake?

    Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    FIFA Inspecting Brazil’s World Cup Stadiums

    Ornate Las Vegas Palace Rented by Michael Jackson for Sale

    Hollywood Legend Betty Grable’s Former Home for Sale

    NLRB Broadens the Joint Employer Standard

    Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Requirements Adjusted

    As Trump Visits Border, Texas Landowners Prepare to Fight the Wall

    Limitations on the Ability to Withdraw and De-Annex Property from a Common Interest Community

    Homebuilders Call for Housing Tax Incentives

    Bad Welds Doom Art Installation at Central Park

    Hanover, Germany Apple Store Delayed by Construction Defects

    New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal in the Nation

    Consequential Damage Claims for Insurer's Bad Faith Dismissed

    Ireland Said to Plan Home Loans Limits to Prevent Bubble

    Antitrust Walker Process Claims Not Covered Under Personal Injury Coverage for Malicious Prosecution

    Presidential Memorandum Promotes Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West

    Reduce Suicide Risk Among Employees in Remote Work Areas

    Under Colorado House Bill 17-1279, HOA Boards Now Must Get Members’ Informed Consent Before Bringing A Construction Defect Action

    Using the Prevention Doctrine

    Four Dead After Crane Collapses at Google’s Seattle Campus

    Housing Starts in U.S. Beat 1 Million Pace for Second Month

    Time is Money. Unless You’re an Insurance Company

    Are Construction Defect Claims Covered Under CGL Policies?

    When is a “Notice of Completion” on a California Private Works Construction Project Valid? Why Does It Matter for My Collection Rights?

    CA Supreme Court Rejects Proposed Exceptions to Interim Adverse Judgment Rule Defense to Malicious Prosecution Action

    New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws

    Public Law Center Honors Snell & Wilmer Partner Sean M. Sherlock As Volunteers For Justice Attorney Of The Year

    Bribe Charges Take Toll on NY Contractor

    Hong Kong Popping Housing Bubbles London Can’t Handle

    Vancouver’s George Massey Tunnel Replacement May Now be a Tunnel Instead of a Bridge

    Florida “get to” costs do not constitute damages because of “property damage”
    Corporate Profile


    The Sun City, Kansas Construction Expert Witness Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Sun City, Kansas

    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is Proud to Announce Jeannette Garcia Has Been Elected as Secretary of the Hispanic Bar Association of Orange County!

    February 03, 2020 —
    The Hispanic Bar Association of Orange County is an affiliate bar of the OCBA. The OC HBA promotes education, unity, and excellence in the Hispanic legal community by expanding the business and professional opportunities available to its members, enhancing the members’ business and professional stature in the Hispanic community, increasing the participation of Hispanic leaders in civic affairs and enhancing the quality of life for the members and the community. Associate Jeannette Garcia has been a member of the OC HBA since 2012, a board member since 2017 and an executive board member since 2018. Jeannette will now serve as Secretary of the OC HBA for the 2020 term. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    The Pandemic of Litigation Sure to Follow the Coronavirus

    March 30, 2020 —
    As the Coronavirus crisis persists, America’s richly diverse private business sector finds itself increasingly subject to unprecedented governmental orders and restrictions that were unheard of only a few weeks ago. While the various “shutdown,” “shelter in place,” and “non-essential business” orders all aim to protect the public health, there is no doubt that the wave of litigation to follow is already swelling. Business interruption, civil authority, and cyber insurance coverages have already been widely discussed as issues certain to be litigated over the coming months and beyond. Additionally, breach of contract litigation is likely to spike as parties attempt to recoup their losses from canceled events, unfulfilled purchase commitments and other unmet obligations. Moreover, regional and national businesses are now in the difficult position of managing their respective affairs to comply with a patchwork of executive orders that are inconsistent from state to state. And, as the pandemic wears on, many are questioning the authority under which some of these executive orders and emergency regulations are being issued in the first place. Indeed, constitutional challenges are almost certain to follow as the business community reframes the characterization of their losses into notions of unconstitutional takings of private property and governmental impairment of private contract rights. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aaron Lovaas, Newmeyer Dillion
    Mr. Lovaas may be contacted at

    Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

    July 13, 2020 —
    Sometimes, hedging a position on a potential occurrence is not prudent. Stated differently, hedging a position on a contingent event is not the right course of action. The reason being is that a potential occurrence or contingent event is SPECULATIVE. The occurrence or event may not take place and, even if it does take place, the impact is unknown. An example of hedging a defense on such a potential occurrence or contingent event can be found in a construction dispute involving a federal project out of the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., 2020 WL 1644565 (E.D.Va. 2020). In this case, the prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform electrical work, under one subcontract, and install a security system, under a separate subcontract. The subcontractor claimed it was owed money under the two subcontracts and instituted a lawsuit against the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond. The prime contractor had issued the subcontractor an approximate $71,000 back-charge for delays. While the subcontractor did not accept the back-charge, it moved for summary judgment claiming that the liability for the back-charge can be resolved at trial as there is still over $300,000 in contract balance that should be paid to it. The prime contractor countered that the delays caused by the subcontractor could be greater than $71,000 based on a negative evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”). A negative CPARS rating by the federal government due to the delays caused by the subcontractor would result in a (potential) loss of business with the federal government (i.e., lost profit) to the prime contractor. The main problem for the prime contractor: a negative CPARs rating was entirely speculative as there had not been a negative CPARs rating and, even if there was, the impact a negative rating would have on the prime contractor’s future business with the federal government was unknown. To this point, the district court stated:
    In this case, [prime contractor’s] claim for damages is wholly speculative. [Prime contractor] has not produced any evidence that its stated condition precedent—a negative CPARS rating—will actually occur and will have a negative impact on its future federal contracting endeavors. Specifically, [prime contractor] has not identified any facts that indicate that it will be subject to a negative CPARS rating or any indication of the Navy’s dissatisfaction with its work as the prime contractor on the Project… Further, a CPARS rating is only one aspect taken into consideration when federal contracts are awarded. In sum, there is no evidence of the following: (1) a negative CPARS rating issued to [prime contractor]; (2) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative rating will be the result of the delay [prime contractor] alleges was caused by [subcontractor]; or (3) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative CPARS rating will result in future lost profits.
    U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc., supra, at *2 (internal citation omitted).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Contractor Entitled to Defense for Alleged Faulty Workmanship of Subcontractor

    February 10, 2020 —
    Applying Nevada law, the Federal District Court in Florida found that the general contractor was entitled to a defense of claims based upon alleged faulty workmanship of a subcontractor. KB Home Jacksonville LLC v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151235 (M.D. Fla. Sept 5, 2019). KB Home completed six residential developments utilizing various subcontractors. One subcontractor was Florida State Plastering, LLC (FSP) for installing stucco. Eighty-eight complaints against KB Home implicated FSP's stucco work. Plaintiffs alleged that the stucco subcontractor's work suffered from construction defects, causing damages not only to the exterior stucco, but also the underling wire lath, paper backing, house wrap, wood sheathing, interior walls, interior floors and other property. Ironshore insured FSP under a CGL policy. KB Home was an additional insured for liability for property damage caused by "your work." KB Home was also insured under its own CGL policy with Liberty Mutual. Both insurers refused to defend. 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

    Privacy In Pandemic: Senators Announce Covid-19 Data Privacy Bill

    May 11, 2020 —
    "Data! Data! Data!. . . I can't make bricks without clay." This classic statement from Sherlock Holmes in The Adventure of the Copper Beeches takes on a new meaning in the COVID-19 pandemic. With the plans to begin contact tracing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic slowly moving towards the forefront, a valid and important issue presents itself: how do we treat and protect the data we so desperately need to trace, track, and address the pandemic? U.S. Senators Wicker, Thune, Moran, and Blackburn introduced a possible solution to this problem with the COVID-19 Consumer Data Protection Act, as announced on April 30, 2020. So what does the Act entail? What information is protected? What action would businesses need to take towards individuals, such as consumers or even employees, in order to comply with this new legislation? WHAT IS THE COVID-19 CONSUMER DATA PROTECTION ACT? The Act is meant to address the concern regarding data collection and privacy due to large companies, like Google and Apple, adjusting the software within their devices to facilitate digital contact tracing. The Act can be broken up into three parts - the treatment of information; the privacy notice requirements; and the transparency requirements. First, the Act prohibits the collection, processing, or transfer of certain categories of data without notice and the affirmative express consent of the individual, in order to:
    • Track the spread of COVID-19,
    • Trace the spread of COVID-19 through contact tracing, or
    • Determine compliance with social distancing guidelines without the requisite notice to individuals and their express consent.
    To accomplish this, the Act also restricts entities in their ability to collect excessive information, stating that an entity cannot collect information beyond what is reasonably necessary to conduct any of the three COVID-19 related purposes listed in the statute. The entity must also provide reasonable administrative, technical, and physical data security policies and practices to protect the information collected. Furthermore, in the event that the entity stops using the information for any of the three COVID-19 purposes, it must delete or de-identify the information it has collected. Next, the Act describes the requirements for notice to individuals. In order to legally collect, process or transfer the information, the entity needs to provide the consumer with prior notice of the purpose, processing, and transfer of the data through their privacy policy within 14 days of the enactment of the law. This policy would have to:
    • Disclose the consumer's rights in a clear and conspicuous manner prior to or at the point of collection,
    • Be available in a clear and conspicuous manner to the public,
    • Include whether the entity will transfer any of the information it collects in order to track or trace COVID-19 or determine compliance with social distancing,
    • Describe its data retention policy, and
    • Generally describe its data security measures.
    Notably, many of these are already requirements common to many privacy policies, including the disclosure regarding the transfer of an individual's information. In addition, an individual must give their affirmative express consent to such collection, processing and transfer. In other words, an individual must "opt-in" to having their information collected. This would be done through a checked box or electronic signature, as the law prohibits entities from inferring consent through a failure by the individual to take an action stopping the collection. Furthermore, the individual would also need the ability to expressly withdraw their consent, with the entity then having to cease collection, processing, or transfer of the information within 14 days of the revocation. In essence, due to the restriction on transferal, this may result in businesses opting to delete or de-identify data upon a revocation. Finally, the entity would have to abide by certain reporting and transparency requirements, namely a monthly public report stating how many individuals had information collected, processed or transferred, and describing the categories of the data collected, processed or transferred by the entity and why. This is akin to the California Consumer Privacy Act's treatment of categories of information, though it would require this information to be released on an ongoing, monthly basis. WHAT DATA IS COVERED? Notably, the Act only affects a very limited scope of data. The Act covers geolocation data (exact real-time locations), proximity data (approximated location data), and Personal Health Information (any genetic/diagnosis information that can identify someone). This could cover information like Bluetooth communication or real-time tracking based on a cell phone's geolocation features. Notably, Personal Health Information does not include any information that may be covered under HIPAA or the broader categorization of "Biometric" data (i.e. retinal scans, finger prints, etc). Furthermore, and more generally, "publicly available information" is excluded, which includes information from telephone books or online directories, the news media, "video, internet, or audio content" as well as "websites available to the general public on an unrestricted basis." The latter of which potentially would push any and all information made available through social media (i.e. Facebook or Twitter) into the definition of "publicly available information." HOW IS IT ENFORCED? Generally, the law would be enforced by the FTC, under the provisions regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices, similar to other enforcement actions arising out of privacy policies. Notwithstanding, state attorney generals may also bring actions to enforce compliance and obtain damages, civil penalties, restitution, or other compensation on behalf of the residents of the state. WHAT SHOULD MY COMPANY DO? If your entity plans on collecting information for tracking COVID-19, measuring social distancing compliance, or contact tracing, it is advisable to include language in your privacy policy now. This could be as simple as adding an additional provision within your privacy policy stating that the entity will retain information to conduct one of the three COVID-19 purposes as laid out in the statute. In addition, this also means that should the entity collect and use employee information for contact tracing, tracking the spread of COVID-19 or ensuring compliance with social distancing measures, it will need to disclose some of the specifics of that process to the employees and have them opt-in for the process. Finally, for contact tracing purposes, any individual that shares their diagnosis will have to opt-in for the entity to legally collect, process, and transfer that information to others. While the time to reach compliance is unknown, it is more important than ever to form a compliance plan for privacy legislation if you do not already have a plan in place. If you decide to prepare with us, our firm has created a 90 day California Consumer Privacy Act compliance program (which can be expedited) where our team will collaborate with you to determine a scalable, practical, and reasonable way for you to meet your needs, and we will provide a free initial consultation. For further inquiries or questions related to COVID-19, you can consult with a Task Force attorney by emailing or contacting our office directly at 949-854-7000. Kyle Janecek is an associate in the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice, and supports the team in advising clients on cyber related matters, including policies and procedures that can protect their day-to-day operations. For more information on how Kyle can help, contact him at Jeff Dennis (CIPP/US) is the Head of the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice. Jeff works with the firm's clients on cyber-related issues, including contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. For more information on how Jeff can help, contact him at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Provides Guidance on ‘Pay-When-Paid’ Provisions in Construction Subcontracts

    July 13, 2020 —
    On April 17, the California Court of Appeal decided Crosno Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America,1 effectively narrowing the scope of enforceable “pay-when-paid” provisions in construction subcontracts to the extent the subcontractor seeks recovery against a general contractor’s payment bond surety. Although the Crosno case involved a public works project, the rationale and holding should apply with equal force to private works projects. Basing the bulk of its decision on the Wm. R. Clarke Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co.2 case, the court found that an open-ended “pay-when-paid” provision in a subcontract is not enforceable against a subcontractor that seeks to recover on a public works payment bond claim. This article discusses the Crosno decision and the implications for contractors on both sides of the contract moving forward. Brief Case Summary In Crosno, general contractor Clark Bros., Inc. contracted with the North Edwards Water District (the District) to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired steel storage tank subcontractor Crosno Construction, Inc. to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. Clark and Crosno’s subcontract included a “pay-when-paid” provision, which stated that Clark would pay Crosno within a “reasonable time” of receiving payments from the owner, but “in no event less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment.” After Crosno completed its work, a dispute arose between Clark and the District, and the District withheld payment from Clark (including the monies earmarked for Clark’s subcontractors). Clark sued the District for payment, and Crosno filed its own action against Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, the surety on Clark’s statutory public works payment bond, for recovery of the unpaid subcontract balance. Travelers rejected Crosno’s bond claim as premature, invoking the “pay-when-paid” subcontract language and pointing to Clark’s pending payment action against the District. The issue on appeal was whether the “pay-when-paid” provision in the subcontract blocked Crosno from recovering under the payment bond from Travelers while Clark’s lawsuit against the District was still pending. Reprinted courtesy of Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Cindy J. Lee, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Gropman may be contacted at Ms. Lee may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?

    February 03, 2020 —
    As is always the case when I attend the Virginia State Bar’s annual construction law seminar, I come away from it with a few posts on recent cases and their implications. The first of these is not a construction case, but has implications relating to the state project related statute of limitations and indemnification issues for construction contracts brought out in stark relief in the now infamous Hensel Phelps case. In Radiance Capital Receivables Fourteen, LLC v. Foster the Court considered a waiver of the statute of limitations found in a loan contract. The operative facts are that the waiver was found in a Continuing Guaranty contract and that the default happened more than 5 years prior to the date that Radiance filed suit to enforce its rights. When the defendants filed a plea in bar stating that the statute of limitations had run and therefore the claim was barred, Radiance of course argued that the defendants had waived their right to bring such a defense. The defendants responded that the waiver was invalid in that it violated the terms of Va. Code 8.01-232 that states among other things:
    an unwritten promise not to plead the statute shall be void, and a written promise not to plead such statute shall be valid when (i) it is made to avoid or defer litigation pending settlement of any case, (ii) it is not made contemporaneously with any other contract, and (iii) it is made for an additional term not longer than the applicable limitations period.
    The Circuit Court and ultimately the Supreme Court agreed with the defendants. In doing so, the Virginia Supreme Court rejected arguments of estoppel and an argument that a “waiver” is not a “promise not to plead.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Landlord Duties of Repair and Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

    February 10, 2020 —
    A recent case from Division I Washington Court of Appeals addressed both a landlord’s duties of repair and maintenance and the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment in commercial leases. Votiv, Inc. v. Bay Vista Owner LLC, No. 78289-4-I, 2019 WL 4419446 (Wash. Ct. App., Sept. 16, 2019). The Plaintiff in that case leased an office space in a mixed-use residential/office/commercial building in Seattle. Although the ownership groups of the various portions of the building were each separate, the entire building was managed by defendant Bay Vista Owner LLC (“BVO”), that was also the Plaintiff’s landlord. There was a need to replace a deteriorating roof membrane to repair water intrusion into the building. The work involved significant demolition on the roof surface over the premises that Votiv, Inc. (“Votiv”), a music/media company, leased on the top floor. The repair work was done primarily during business hours causing significant disturbance to Votiv’s business operations. Votiv sued BVO and other defendants for, among other things, nuisance, breach of lease, constructive eviction, and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. The trial court denied Votiv’s claim for injunctive relief and granted summary judgment to the Defendants. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence S. Glosser, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Glosser may be contacted at