BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing expert witness Tinley Park Illinois custom homes expert witness Tinley Park Illinois casino resort expert witness Tinley Park Illinois Medical building expert witness Tinley Park Illinois condominiums expert witness Tinley Park Illinois condominium expert witness Tinley Park Illinois structural steel construction expert witness Tinley Park Illinois institutional building expert witness Tinley Park Illinois townhome construction expert witness Tinley Park Illinois concrete tilt-up expert witness Tinley Park Illinois industrial building expert witness Tinley Park Illinois multi family housing expert witness Tinley Park Illinois housing expert witness Tinley Park Illinois parking structure expert witness Tinley Park Illinois landscaping construction expert witness Tinley Park Illinois Subterranean parking expert witness Tinley Park Illinois hospital construction expert witness Tinley Park Illinois mid-rise construction expert witness Tinley Park Illinois production housing expert witness Tinley Park Illinois high-rise construction expert witness Tinley Park Illinois custom home expert witness Tinley Park Illinois retail construction expert witness Tinley Park Illinois
    Tinley Park Illinois structural engineering expert witnessesTinley Park Illinois construction defect expert witnessTinley Park Illinois construction expert witnessTinley Park Illinois expert witness windowsTinley Park Illinois delay claim expert witnessTinley Park Illinois expert witness concrete failureTinley Park Illinois roofing and waterproofing 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


    Construction Defect Leads to Death, Jury Awards $39 Million

    Judge Tells DOL to Cork its Pistol as New Overtime Rule is Blocked

    How SmartThings Wants to Automate Your Home

    Study May Come Too Late for Construction Defect Bill

    Building Growth Raises Safety Concerns

    No Coverage for Restoring Aesthetic Uniformity

    Rihanna Gained an Edge in Construction Defect Case

    Fracking Fears Grow as Oklahoma Hit by More Earthquakes Than California

    Bad Faith Claim For Independent Contractor's Reduced Loss Assessment Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Judgment for Insured Upheld After Insurer Rejects Claim for Hurricane Damage

    Approaches to Managing Job Site Inventory

    Palo Alto Considers Fines for Stalled Construction Projects

    AFL-CIO Joins in $10 Billion Infrastructure Plan

    Designers Face Fatal Pedestrian Bridge Collapse Fallout

    The Metaphysics of When an Accident is an “Accident” (or Not) Under Your Insurance Policy

    Ohio Condo Owners Sue Builder, Alleging Construction Defects

    Speeding up Infrastructure Projects with the Cloud

    Connecticut District Court to Review Proposed Class Action in Defective Concrete Suit

    South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage

    Building Inspector Jailed for Taking Bribes

    Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

    Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

    Port Authority Approves Subsidies for 2 World Trade Project

    Citigroup Reaches $1.13 Billion Pact Over Mortgage Bonds

    KB Home Names New President of its D.C. Metro Division

    Insurance Company Must Show that Lead Came from Building Materials

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    New Jersey Appellate Court Reinstates Asbestos Action

    California’s Housing Costs Endanger Growth, Analyst Says

    Newmeyer & Dillion Gets Top-Tier Practice Area Rankings on U.S. News – Best Lawyers List

    Hurdles with Triggering a Subcontractor Performance Bond

    ICE Said to Seek Mortgage Role Through Talks With Data Service

    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    Transplants Send Nashville Home Market Upwards

    Floors Collapse at Russian University in St. Petersburg

    Colorado Construction-Defects Reform Law Attempt Expected in 2015

    US-Mexico Border Wall Bids Include Tourist Attraction, Solar Panels

    House Passes Bill to Delay EPA Ozone Rule

    Sold Signs Fill Builder Lots as U.S. Confidence Rises: Economy

    Conflicts of Laws, Deficiency Actions, and Statutes of Limitations – Oh My!

    Are Housing Prices Poised to Fall in Denver?

    Contractor Allegedly Stole Construction Materials

    Midview Board of Education Lawsuit Over Construction Defect Repairs

    Toll Brothers to Acquire Shapell for $1.6 Billion

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Faulty Workmanship Claim

    Apartment Boom in Denver a Shortcut Around Condo Construction Defect Suits?

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

    Seattle Council May Take a New Look at Micro-Housing

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Subcontractor Has No Duty to Defend Under Indemnity Provision

    U.K. Construction Resumes Growth Amid Resurgent Housing Activity
    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

    Luxury Villa Fraudsters Jailed for Madeira Potato Field Scam

    September 25, 2018 —
    Four men and a woman convicted of conning people to invest in a fraudulent luxury villa construction scheme on a potato field in the Portuguese island of Madeira were sentenced to as long as 5 1/2 years in a U.K. jail. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Franz Wild, Bloomberg

    Planned Everglades Reservoir at Center of Spat Between Fla.'s Gov.-Elect, Water Management District

    January 02, 2019 —
    Dec. 11 -- Florida's incoming governor stopped short of demanding South Florida water managers step down over a contentious land deal with sugar farmers, saying he would instead await a recommendation from his transition team. That doesn't mean their days may not be numbered. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.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

    OH Supreme Court Rules Against General Contractor in Construction Defect Coverage Dispute

    October 30, 2018 —
    On October 9, 2018, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision in Ohio Northern University v. Charles Construction Services, Inc., Slip Op. 2018-Ohio-4057, finding that a general contractor was not entitled to defense or indemnity from its CGL insurer in a construction defect suit brought by a project owner post-project completion. With this decision, Ohio has solidified its place amongst a diminishing number of states, including Pennsylvania and Kentucky, which hold that there is no coverage for defective construction claims because those losses do not present the level of fortuity required to trigger CGL coverage. This places Ohio amongst the worst in the country on this issue at a time when numerous states have abandoned old precedent and moved towards a policyholder friendly analysis. Ohio Northern University (“ONU”) hired Charles Construction Services, Inc. (“CCS”) to construct the University Inn and Conference Center, a new hotel and conference center on their campus in Ada, Ohio. CCS purchased CGL insurance from Cincinnati Insurance Company (“CIC”) insuring the project. Following completion of the project, ONU sued CCS alleging defects in the construction of the completed project, including allegations that windows improperly installed by one subcontractor led to damage to walls built by another subcontractor. CIC agreed to defend CCS under a reservation of rights but intervened in the action between ONU and CCS to pursue a declaratory judgment that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify its insured for the alleged losses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com

    Construction Firm Settles Suit Over 2012 Calif. Wildfire

    January 15, 2019 —
    SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Officials say a construction company and a logging firm have collectively agreed to pay $9 million for damages resulting from a 2012 wildfire that burned more than 1,600 acres of national forest land in Northern California. The U.S. Attorney's office in Sacramento says Monday that the agreement settles a lawsuit brought by the federal government against Kernen Construction and Bundy & Sons Logging. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Ohio Supreme Court Holds No Occurence Arises from Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

    January 09, 2019 —
    The Ohio Supreme Court bucked the modern trend by finding that there was no coverage under CGL policy's the subcontractor's exception for faulty workmanship claimed against the insured. Ohio N. Univ. v. Charles Constr. Servs. 2018 Ohio LEXIS 2375 (Ohio Oct. 9, 2018). The University contracted with Charles Construction Services, Inc. to build a new luxury hotel and conference center on campus. After work was completed, the University discovered extensive water damage from hidden leaks that it believed were caused by the defective work of Charles Construction and its subcontractors. Repairs were made at the cost of $6 million. 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

    Musk Backs Off Plan for Tunnel in Tony Los Angelenos' Backyard

    December 19, 2018 —
    Elon Musk’s futuristic tunneling company, Boring Co., is no longer embroiled in a lawsuit with the residents of West Los Angeles. A May lawsuit aimed at stopping the Boring Co.’s proposed tunnel under Sepulveda Boulevard has been settled, according to a notice filed at the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Neighbors in the Brentwood and Sunset Boulevard areas, near the proposed tunnel, had sued the City of Los Angeles over the Boring Co.’s plans to build a test tunnel without going through an environmental review process, as recommended in April by the city’s public works committee. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah McBride & Edvard Pettersson, Bloomberg

    Court Finds That Limitation on Conditional Use Permit Results in Covered Property Damage Due to Loss of Use

    November 06, 2018 —
    In Thee Sombrero, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. (No. E067505, filed 10/25/18), a California appeals court held that a property owner’s loss of the ability to use his property as a nightclub, based on revocation of a city’s conditional use permit (“CUP”), constituted covered property damage. In Sombrero, lessees operated a nightclub under the property owner’s conditional use permit from the City of Colton. A company hired to provide security negligently allowed admission to an armed patron, who shot and killed another patron. The City revoked the owner’s permit, and the owner was only able to negotiate the reinstatement of a limited permit, for use as a banquet hall only. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of