• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort expert witness West Chicago Illinois parking structure expert witness West Chicago Illinois townhome construction expert witness West Chicago Illinois institutional building expert witness West Chicago Illinois condominiums expert witness West Chicago Illinois structural steel construction expert witness West Chicago Illinois low-income housing expert witness West Chicago Illinois housing expert witness West Chicago Illinois multi family housing expert witness West Chicago Illinois office building expert witness West Chicago Illinois condominium expert witness West Chicago Illinois industrial building expert witness West Chicago Illinois concrete tilt-up expert witness West Chicago Illinois hospital construction expert witness West Chicago Illinois high-rise construction expert witness West Chicago Illinois production housing expert witness West Chicago Illinois retail construction expert witness West Chicago Illinois mid-rise construction expert witness West Chicago Illinois Subterranean parking expert witness West Chicago Illinois tract home expert witness West Chicago Illinois custom homes expert witness West Chicago Illinois custom home expert witness West Chicago Illinois
    West Chicago Illinois roofing and waterproofing expert witnessWest Chicago Illinois contractor expert witnessWest Chicago Illinois construction code expert witnessWest Chicago Illinois expert witness structural engineerWest Chicago Illinois construction cost estimating expert witnessWest Chicago Illinois architecture expert witnessWest Chicago Illinois construction project management expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    West Chicago, 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 West Chicago Illinois

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

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Greater Fox Valley
    Local # 1431
    PO Box 1146
    Saint Charles, IL 60174

    West Chicago Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    West Chicago 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

    West Chicago Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    SouthWest Suburban Home Builders Association
    Local # 1432
    10767 W 163rd Pl
    Orland Park, IL 60467

    West Chicago 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

    West Chicago Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    West Chicago Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    West Chicago Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For West Chicago Illinois

    Apartment Projects Fuel 13% Jump in U.S. Housing Starts

    Designers George Yabu and Glenn Pushelberg Discuss One57’s Ultra-Luxury Park Hyatt

    White and Williams Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers

    Surety's Settlement Without Principal's Consent Is Not Bad Faith

    Construction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some Regions

    Georgia Passes Solar CUVA Bill

    California Case Adds Difficulties for Contractors & Material Suppliers

    Mandatory Attorneys’ Fee Award for Actions Brought Under the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    Subcontractor Exception to Your Work Exclusion Paves the Way for Coverage

    Federal Court Again Confirms No Coverage For Construction Defects in Hawaii

    School System Settles Design Defect Suit for $5.2Million

    Axa Buys London Pinnacle Site for Redesigned Skyscraper

    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

    NAHB Reports on U.S. Jobs Created from Home Building

    Fence Attached to Building Covered Under Dwelling Provisions

    Patriarch Partners Decision Confirms Government Subpoenas May Constitute a “Claim” Under D&O Policy; Warns Policyholders to Think Broadly When Representing Facts and Circumstances to Insurers

    When is a “Willful” Violation Willful (or Not) Under California’s Contractor Enforcement Statutes?

    Delays in Filing Lead to Dismissal in Moisture Intrusion Lawsuit

    Brief Discussion of Enforceability of Anti-Indemnity Statutes in California

    Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien “Waivers” and “Releases”: What’s the Difference?

    Massachusetts High Court to Decide if Insurers Can Recoup Defense Costs

    Blackstone to Buy Apartments From Greystar in $2 Billion Deal

    Construction Contract Language and Insurance Coverage Must Be Consistent

    Thanks for Four Years of Recognition from JD Supra’s Readers’ Choice Awards

    Construction Suit Ends with Just an Apology

    Can a Non-Signatory Invoke an Arbitration Provision?

    Cerberus, Blackstone Loosening Credit for U.S. Landlords

    Unpaid Subcontractor Walks Off the Job and Wins

    Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when General Contractor Does Not

    Blackstone Suffers Court Setback in Irish Real Estate Drama

    Construction Defect Not a RICO Case, Says Court

    California Supreme Court Raises the Bar on Dangerous Conditions on Public Property Claims

    Practical Pointers for Change Orders on Commercial Construction Contracts

    Indemnity Payment to Insured Satisfies SIR

    Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements

    SDNY Vacates Arbitration Award for Party-Arbitrator’s Nondisclosures

    The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.

    Terminator’s Trench Rehab Drives L.A. Land Prices Crazy

    KB to Spend $43.2 Million on Florida Construction Defects

    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

    Does Arbitration Apply to Contemporaneously Executed Contracts (When One of the Contracts Does Not Have an Arbitration Provision)?

    Tightest Credit Market in 16 Years Rejects Bernanke’s Bid

    Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

    California Posts Nation’s Largest Gain in Construction Jobs

    UPDATE - McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court

    Houston Bond Issue Jump-Starts 237 Flood Control Projects

    Convictions Obtained in Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

    California Condo Architects Not Liable for Construction Defects?
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the West Chicago, Illinois Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to West Chicago's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    West Chicago, Illinois

    Court Slams the Privette Door on Independent Contractor’s Bodily Injury Claim

    May 06, 2019 —
    In Johnson v. The Raytheon Company, Inc., Case No. B281411 (2019) WL 1090217, plaintiff Laurence Johnson (Johnson) was a maintenance engineer employed by an independent contractor that provided control room staff to defendant Raytheon Company, Inc. (“Raytheon”). Johnson was monitoring the computers in the control room when he received low water level alarms pertaining to the water cooling towers. Johnson went to the cooling tower wall in order to look over the wall and verify the water level. Johnson saw the upper half of an extension ladder leaning against the cooling tower’s wall. The ladder had a warning sign which said, “CAUTION” and “THIS LADDER SECTION IS NOT DESIGNED FOR SEPARATE USE.” Despite these warnings, Johnson used the ladder. As he was climbing the ladder it slid out causing him to fall and suffer injuries. Johnson sued Raytheon, the hirer of the independent contractor, arguing the ladder, among other things, was unsafe and lead to Johnson’s injuries. Johnson believed that Raytheon’s course of conduct of leaving a platform ladder (as opposed to the extension ladder) at the wall constituted an implied agreement to always have one present, on which the independent contractor’s employees relied. Johnson further argued that Raytheon was negligent in providing a dangerous extension ladder, as opposed to a platform ladder, at the wall on the night of the accident. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Brett G. Moore, Michael C. Parme, Lindsey N. Ursua and Lawrence S. Zucker II Mr. Moore may be contacted at Mr. Parme may be contacted at Ms. Lindsey may be contacted at Mr. Lawrence may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Impasse Over Corruption Charges Costs SNC $3.7 Billion, CEO Says

    January 08, 2019 —
    Canada’s failure to reach a negotiated settlement with SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. over past corruption charges has probably cost the company more than C$5 billion ($3.7 billion) in lost revenue and continues to damage its reputation internationally, Chief Executive Officer Neil Bruce said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Frederic Tomesco, Bloomberg

    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 Mr. Napper may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Liquidated Damages: A Dangerous Afterthought

    January 15, 2019 —
    Owners and contractors frequently treat liquidated damages provisions as an afterthought, but they deserve to be treated as a key deal term. If a contractor breaches a contract by failing to complete the work in a timely manner, the remedy is typically an agreed upon amount or rate of liquidated damages. Liquidated damages provisions seldom get more than a cursory, “back of the napkin” analysis, or worse, parties will simply plug in a number. This practice is dangerous because liquidated damages typically represent the owner’s sole remedy for delay and, more importantly, they are subject to attack and possible invalidation if certain legal standards are not met. The parties to a construction contract should never agree to an amount of liquidated damages without first attempting to forecast and calculate actual, potential damages. Reprinted courtesy of Trevor B. Potter, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Supreme Court Holds Arbitrator can Fully Decide Threshold Arbitrability Issue

    March 18, 2019 —
    The United States Supreme Court recently decided parties to a contract can agree, under the Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitrator, rather than a court, can fully resolve the initial arbitrability question. Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc., 2019 WL 122164 (2019). The arbitrability question is whether the dispute itself is subject to arbitration under an arbitration provision. Parties that do not want to arbitrate try to circumvent this process by filing a lawsuit and asking the court to determine the threshold arbitrability question. In Henry Schein, Inc., the contract at-issue provided: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina. Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief and disputes related to trademarks, trade secrets, or other intellectual property) shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association. The place of arbitration shall be in Charlotte, North Carolina. The plaintiff in this case asserted a claim for injunctive relief (among other claims) and argued that, therefore, the dispute is not subject to arbitration based on the exception in the provision. The initial, threshold issue became whether the dispute was subject to arbitration and, importantly, who decides this issue. The Court further looked at whether a trial court can resolve this issue under the “wholly groundless” exception, i.e.,the court can decide the issue if the argument for arbitration is wholly groundless. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Rhode Island Examines a Property Owner’s Intended Beneficiary Status and the Economic Loss Doctrine in the Context of a Construction Contract

    March 18, 2019 —
    In Hexagon Holdings Inc. v. Carlisle Syntec, Inc. No. 2017-175-Appeal, 2019 R.I. Lexis 14 (January 17, 2019), the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, discussing claims associated with allegedly defective construction, addressed issues involving intended beneficiaries to contracts and the application of the economic loss doctrine. The court held that, based on the evidence presented, the building owner, Hexagon Holdings, Inc. (Hexagon) was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the subcontract between the general contractor (A/Z Corporation) and the subcontractor, defendant McKenna Roofing and Construction, Inc. (McKenna). In addition, the court held that, in the context of this commercial construction contract, the economic loss doctrine applied and barred Hexagon’s negligence claims against McKenna. Approximately nine years after Hexagon entered into a contract with A/Z Corporation for the construction of a building, Hexagon filed suit against A/Z Corporation’s roofing installation subcontractor, McKenna, and the manufacturer of the roofing system. Hexagon alleged that the roof began to leak shortly after McKenna installed it. Notably, Hexagon did not sue A/Z Corporation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams
    Ms. Warren may be contacted at

    APROPLAN and GenieBelt Merge, Creating “LetsBuild” – the Build Phase End-to-End Digital Platform

    March 18, 2019 —
    Responding to a rising need to deliver an all-in-one solution, supporting on-site planning, progress communication, snagging, drawings and checklists, GenieBelt and APROPLAN have decided to merge to form LetsBuild – the European leader in delivering an end-to-end solution to the global construction industry. For the past five years, GenieBelt CEO Klaus Nyengaard and APROPLAN CEO Thomas Goubau have met on a regular basis to discuss developments in the construction technology sector and how to increase efficiency and minimise rework, miscommunication, and errors. “We share the vision that ‘simple to use’-products will bring immense value to the construction sector. When we met in October 2018, we concluded that the way to realize this vision was to unite our companies to create a broader product and cover more needs in the market,” says LetsBuild CEO Klaus Nyengaard. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at

    Haight’s Sacramento Office Has Moved

    April 17, 2019 —
    Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP has moved its Sacramento office to a new location. Effective March 18, 2019, Haight’s new Sacramento office address is: 500 Capitol Mall Suite 2150 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.702.3200 F: 916.570.1947 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP