BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort expert witness Tinley Park Illinois Subterranean parking expert witness Tinley Park Illinois tract home expert witness Tinley Park Illinois structural steel construction expert witness Tinley Park Illinois institutional building expert witness Tinley Park Illinois parking structure expert witness Tinley Park Illinois condominiums expert witness Tinley Park Illinois condominium expert witness Tinley Park Illinois mid-rise construction expert witness Tinley Park Illinois custom home expert witness Tinley Park Illinois townhome construction expert witness Tinley Park Illinois Medical building expert witness Tinley Park Illinois hospital construction expert witness Tinley Park Illinois concrete tilt-up expert witness Tinley Park Illinois office building expert witness Tinley Park Illinois industrial building expert witness Tinley Park Illinois custom homes expert witness Tinley Park Illinois landscaping construction expert witness Tinley Park Illinois production housing expert witness Tinley Park Illinois retail construction expert witness Tinley Park Illinois housing expert witness Tinley Park Illinois high-rise construction expert witness Tinley Park Illinois
    Tinley Park Illinois building code compliance expert witnessTinley Park Illinois expert witness structural engineerTinley Park Illinois roofing construction expertTinley Park Illinois construction scheduling expert witnessTinley Park Illinois construction code expert witnessTinley Park Illinois building expertTinley Park Illinois construction claims expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Tinley 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 Tinley 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

    Tinley Park Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Tinley Park Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Tinley Park Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Tinley 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

    Tinley 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

    Tinley Park Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Tinley Park Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Tinley Park Illinois


    Nevada Bill Would Bring Changes to Construction Defects

    Practical Advice: Indemnification and Additional Insured Issues Revisited

    DE Confirms Robust D&O Protection Despite Company Demise

    How Many Homes have Energy-Efficient Appliances?

    Homeowner Alleges Pool Construction Is Defective

    Contractor Sentenced to 7 Years for “Hail Damage” Fraud

    Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

    U.S. Government Bans Use of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements between Nursing Homes and Residents, Effective November 28, 2016

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to Best Lawyers in America© Orange County and as Attorneys of the Year 2018

    Oregon agreement to procure insurance, anti-indemnity statute, and self-insured retention

    Subcontractors Have a Duty to Clarify Ambiguities in Bid Documents

    Insurance Telematics and Usage Based Insurance Products

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Nevada for Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    Providing “Labor” Under the Miller Act

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds Lay Witness Can Provide Opinion Testimony on the Value of a Property If the Witness Had an Opportunity to Form a Reasoned Opinion

    Measure of Damages in Negligent Procurement of Surety Bonds / Insurance

    Reminder: A Little Pain Now Can Save a Lot of Pain Later

    Court Rules in Favor of Treasure Island Developers in Environmental Case

    PSA: Performing Construction Work in Virginia Requires a Contractor’s License

    Who is Responsible for Construction Defect Repairs?

    Colorado’s Three-Bill Approach to Alleged Construction Defect Issues

    Insurance Firm Defends against $22 Million Claim

    Possible Real Estate and Use and Occupancy Tax Relief for Philadelphia Commercial and Industrial Property Owners

    Making the World’s Longest Undersea Railway Tunnel Possible with BIM

    Documentation Important for Defending Construction Defect Claims

    Manhattan Home Prices Jump to a Record as Buyers Compete

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

    Chinese Billionaire Sues Local Governments Over Project Payment

    Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL

    Newmeyer & Dillion Ranked Fourth Among Medium Sized Companies in 2016 OCBJ Best Places to Work List

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    The Rubber Hits the Ramp: A Maryland Personal Injury Case

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold Due to Insurer

    Court of Appeals Discusses Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in Public Works Contracting

    Private Mediations Do Not Toll The Five-Year Prosecution Statute

    Appeals Court Affirms Civil Engineer Owes No Duty of Care to General Contractor

    Be Careful with Continuous Breach and Statute of Limitations

    Fifth Circuit Rules that Settlements in Underlying Action Constitute "Other Insurance"

    What are the Potential Damages when a House is a Lemon?

    Brookfield Wins Disputed Bid to Manage Manhattan Marina

    Colorado Passes Compromise Bill on Construction Defects

    JPMorgan Blamed for ‘Zombie’ Properties in Miami Lawsuit

    Resolving Condominium Construction Defect Warranty Claims in Maryland

    Texas exclusions j(5) and j(6).

    New Safety Requirements added for Keystone Pipeline

    The Construction Project is Late—Allocation of Delay

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases

    Eighth Circuit Rejects Retroactive Application of Construction Defect Legislation

    Solar Energy Isn’t Always Green
    Corporate Profile

    TINLEY PARK ILLINOIS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Tinley 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 Tinley 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
    Tinley Park, Illinois

    Building Codes Evolve With High Wind Events

    November 14, 2018 —
    Designs for wind loads have been in building codes for a long time. Prior to the creation of the International Building Code, the three primary legacy codes had wind load provisions but they mostly dealt with wind loads on the building frame and had little load information about the building components or the exterior cladding. Since Hurricane Andrew in 1992, building codes include more wind design information that comes from disaster investigations and wind engineering research conducted primarily at the university level. In 2000, the legacy building codes were replaced with the International Building Code (IBC). Residential buildings must comply with the International Residential Code (IRC). Both of these building code documents reference the engineering load standard, ASCE 7 Minimum Design Loads and Other Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. This load standard has also been in existence for a long time; it now is revised every six years and the building codes revised every three years (IBC and IRC) reference ASCE 7 so the provisions in ASCE 7 become part of the building code requirements. Reprinted courtesy of William L. Coulbourne, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fifth Circuit Rules that Settlements in Underlying Action Constitute "Other Insurance"

    April 17, 2019 —
    The Fifth Circuit ruled that settlements between an insured and its subcontractors qualified as “other insurance” to the extent those settlements were used to pay for damages covered by an excess insurance policy. Policyholders should note the outcome of this case as it demonstrates the significant impact that settlements can have on coverage. Satterfield & Pontikes Construction, Inc. v. Amerisure Mutual Ins. Co.1 was the result of a construction project gone wrong. Zapata County, Texas hired Satterfield & Pontikes (“S&P”) as a general contractor for the construction of a courthouse building. When the project did not go as planned, Zapata County terminated S&P, hired new subcontractors to complete the project, and sued S&P. S&P, in turn, sought indemnification from its subcontractors, who were contractually obligated to indemnify S&P and procure insurance for any damage the subcontractors caused at the project. S&P also sought coverage from its own primary insurers, American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (“AGLIC”) and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company (“Amerisure”), and its excess insurer, U.S. Fire Insurance Company (“U.S. Fire”) who provided liability coverage for S&P’s potential liabilities at the project. The policies contained exclusions for losses arising from mold and did not provide coverage for attorney’s fees or similar legal costs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Casanova may be contacted at tlc@sdvlaw.com

    Safety Versus a False Sense of Security: Challenges to the Use of Construction Cranes

    March 18, 2019 —
    The history of safety is, in part, the history of resistance to safety. From transportation and travel to sports and entertainment, the safeguards taken for granted were once too allegedly controversial or costly for companies to grant to consumers. Imagine driving a car without a seatbelt or being a passenger in a minivan without side-impact airbags or anti-lock brakes, or playing football without a helmet or riding a roller coaster without a shoulder harness. Imagine, too, pulling out of parking space without a rear-view camera, unable to see passing cars or pedestrians. Cameras are now as common among compact cars as on the most uncommonly expensive sports cars and sedans. And yet, the technology that earns drivers a discount on car insurance is the same or mostly similar technology that insurers refuse to cover elsewhere. The technologies that makes parallel parking easier or easing a car into traffic a cinch is considered an extravagance on construction equipment, despite the dangers crane operators face but cannot see, despite what workers on the ground can see but not forecast, despite what cameras can record and capture. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Machut, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Parol Evidence can be Used to Defeat Fraudulent Lien

    March 27, 2019 —
    Parol or extrinsic evidence can be used to defeat an argument that a lien is a fraudulent lien. And, just because a lien amount exceeds the total contract amount does not presumptively mean the lien is willfully exaggerated or recorded in bad faith. Finally, a ruling invalidating a construction lien can create the irreparable harm required to support a petition for writ of certiorari. All of these issues are important when dealing with and defending against a fraudulent lien and are explained in a recent case involving a dispute between an electrical subcontractor and its supplier. In Farrey’s Wholesale Hardware Co., Inc. v. Coltin Electrical Services, LLC, 44 Fla.L.Weekly D130a (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), there were various revisions to the supplier’s initial purchase order, both from a qualitative and quantitative perspective, and a ninth-revised purchaser order was issued and accepted. The electrical subcontractor claimed that deliveries were late, unassembled, and did not include the required marking (likely the UL marking), to pass building inspections. As a result, the subcontractor withheld money from the supplier and the supplier recorded a lien in the amount of $853,773.16 and filed a foreclosure lawsuit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    SCOTUS, Having Received Views of Solicitor General, Will Decide Whether CWA Regulates Indirect Discharge of Pollutants Into Navigable Water Via Groundwater

    April 17, 2019 —
    Prior to deciding whether to review an important February 1, 2018, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision involving the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, et al., v. County of Maui, the Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General for the views of the U.S. on the holdings of this case and the April 12, 2018 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision, Upstate Forever, et al., v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., et al. On February 19, the Supreme Court confirmed that certiorari was granted to Question 1 presented by the Petition,
    Whether the CWA requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source, such as groundwater. (33 U.S.C. § 1362 (12)
    In County of Maui , the Ninth Circuit held that indirect discharges to navigable waters through groundwater may be subject to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) CWA the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting authority, and in Kinder Morgan, the Fourth Circuit held that such an indirect discharge may be subject to regulation under the CWA when there is a direct hydrological connection between the discharge into groundwater and the direct discharge into navigable, surface waters. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Five Keys to Driving Digital Transformation in Engineering and Construction

    January 02, 2019 —
    Engineering and construction companies increasingly find themselves navigating an era of disruptive and transformative change driven by technology. And with the industry going strong and construction employment recently reaching a 10-year high, more companies recognize that it is time to embrace the efficiencies digital transformation brings, in large part to protect or enhance their competitive position. A report from the Global Industry Council notes that modern technology is moving to the strategic center of E&C business models as part of an evolutionary process. Reprinted courtesy of Rob Phillpot, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Trump Administration Issues Proposed 'Waters of the U.S.' Rule

    December 19, 2018 —
    Construction contractors said a proposed revised definition of “Waters of the United States,” released by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers on Dec. 11, would provide their firms with clarity about what types of permits they will need for their construction projects near various bodies of water. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pam Radtke Russell, ENR
    Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com

    CGL Policy Covering Attorney’s Fees in Property Damage Claims

    December 11, 2018 —
    Does a CGL policy cover attorney’s fees and costs in property damages claims, to the extent there is a contractual or statutory basis to recover attorney’s fees? Naturally, you need to review the policies and this is not a clear-cut issue, but there is law to argue under. A case I have argued in support of CGL policies providing for coverage for attorney’s fees as a component of property damage claims when there is a contractual or statutory basis is Assurance Co. of America v. Lucas Waterproofing Co., Inc., 581 F.Supp.2d 1201 (S.D.Fla. 2008). In this case, the following applied:
    • The policy provided coverage for “those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages of… ‘property damage’….
    • Property damage was defined as “physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property.”
    • The term damage, in of itself, was not defined in the policy.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com