• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building expert witness Westfield Illinois custom home expert witness Westfield Illinois housing expert witness Westfield Illinois townhome construction expert witness Westfield Illinois landscaping construction expert witness Westfield Illinois condominium expert witness Westfield Illinois parking structure expert witness Westfield Illinois high-rise construction expert witness Westfield Illinois multi family housing expert witness Westfield Illinois structural steel construction expert witness Westfield Illinois institutional building expert witness Westfield Illinois custom homes expert witness Westfield Illinois concrete tilt-up expert witness Westfield Illinois condominiums expert witness Westfield Illinois production housing expert witness Westfield Illinois mid-rise construction expert witness Westfield Illinois industrial building expert witness Westfield Illinois hospital construction expert witness Westfield Illinois casino resort expert witness Westfield Illinois low-income housing expert witness Westfield Illinois Subterranean parking expert witness Westfield Illinois retail construction expert witness Westfield Illinois
    Westfield Illinois expert witness roofingWestfield Illinois civil engineering expert witnessWestfield Illinois stucco expert witnessWestfield Illinois contractor expert witnessWestfield Illinois concrete expert witnessWestfield Illinois construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessWestfield Illinois window expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Westfield, 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 Westfield Illinois

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

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Springfield Area Home Builders Association
    Local # 1470
    3921 Pintail Dr Ste B
    Springfield, IL 62711

    Westfield Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Effingham Area Home Builders Association
    Local # 1423
    PO Box 1323
    Effingham, IL 62401

    Westfield Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Illinois
    Local # 1400
    112 W Edwards Street
    Springfield, IL 62704

    Westfield Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Metro Decatur Home Builders Association
    Local # 1435
    PO Box 1166
    Decatur, IL 62525

    Westfield Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Quincy
    Local # 1460
    PO Box 3615
    Quincy, IL 62305
    Westfield Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of East Central IL
    Local # 1420
    701 Devonshire C-50 # C-50
    Champaign, IL 61820

    Westfield Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Southwest Illinois
    Local # 1468
    6100 W Main St
    Maryville, IL 62062

    Westfield Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Westfield Illinois

    The Project “Completion” Paradox in California

    Negligence Per Se Claim Based Upon Failure to Pay Benefits Fails

    San Francisco Bucks U.S. Trend With Homeownership Gains

    Be Careful with Mechanic’s Lien Waivers

    Contractor Sued for Contract Fraud by Government

    New Window Insulation Introduced to U.S. Market

    Construction Defects Are Not An Occurrence Under New York, New Jersey Law

    Sept. 11 Victims Rejected by U.S. High Court on Lawsuit

    More Money Down Adds to U.S. First-Time Buyer Blues: Economy

    Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion to Reject Claim for Construction Defects Upheld

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    9th Circuit Closes the Door on “Open Shop” Contractor

    Float-In of MassDOT Span Sails, But Delay Dispute Lingers

    Locals Concerns over Taylor Swift’s Seawall Misdirected

    Washington Court Limits Lien Rights of Construction Managers

    Citigroup Pays Record $697 Million for Hong Kong Office Tower

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Denies Review of Pro-Policy Decision

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Policyholder Can “Stack” the Limits of Each Primary Policy After Asbestos Claim

    Who is Responsible for Construction Defect Repairs?

    Another TV Fried as Georgia Leads U.S. in Lightning Costs

    Former Zurich Executive to Head Willis North America Construction Insurance Group

    Pay-if-Paid Clauses, Nasty, but Enforceable

    Repairs Commencing on Defect-Ridden House from Failed State Supreme Court Case

    Connecticut Court Finds Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Enforceable

    Canada Housing Surprises Again With July Starts Increase

    Nevada Supreme Court Clarifies the Litigation Waiver of the One-Action Rule

    Utah Becomes First State to Enact the Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act

    Low Interest Rates Encourages Homeowners to become Landlords

    NY Appeals Court Ruled Builders not Responsible in Terrorism Cases

    TRI Pointe Merges with Weyerhaeuser’s Real Estate Company

    Oregon Court of Appeals Rules That Negligent Construction (Construction Defect) Claims Are Subject to a Two-Year Statute of Limitations

    Former Sponsor of the Lenox Facing Suit in Supreme Court

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

    Wait, You Want An HOA?! Restricting Implied Common-Interest Communities

    SNC-Lavalin’s Former Head of Construction Pleads Guilty to Bribery, Money Laundering

    U.S. Construction Spending Rose in 2017 by Least in Six Years

    Big Builder’s Analysis of the Top Ten Richest Counties

    Texas Supreme Court Rules on Contractual Liability Exclusion in Construction Cases

    Construction Defect Journal Seeks Article Submissions Regarding SB800 and Other Builders Right to Repair Laws

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

    California’s Right To Repair Act Is The Sole Remedy For Damages For Construction Defects In New Residential Construction

    Residential Mortgage Lenders and Servicers Beware of Changes to Rule 3002.1

    Blackstone Suffers Court Setback in Irish Real Estate Drama

    What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

    Nonparty Discovery in California Arbitration: How to Get What You Want

    Addenda to Construction Contracts Can Be an Issue

    Battle of Experts Cannot Be Decided on Summary Judgment

    Uniwest Rides Again (or, Are Architects Subject to Va. Code Section 11-4.1?)

    California Posts Nation’s Largest Gain in Construction Jobs

    When Does a Claim Against an Insurance Carrier for Failing to Defend Accrue?
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Westfield, Illinois Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Westfield'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
    Westfield, Illinois

    Supreme Court Rejects “Wholly Groundless” Exception to Question of Arbitrability

    February 06, 2019 —
    In newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s first opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that the “wholly groundless” exception to arbitrability, which some federal courts had relied on as justification to decide questions of arbitrability over the express terms of a contract, was inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent. Based on this decision, where a contract delegates the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator, courts must respect the parties’ contract and refer the question to the arbitrator. Schein v. Archer & White, 586 U.S. __ (2019). In Schein, Archer & White brought a lawsuit against Henry Schein alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and seeking both monetary damages and injunctive relief. The relevant contract between the parties contained an arbitration provision that provided:
    “Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief . . .) shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin Fortescue, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at

    In Massachusetts, the Statute of Repose Applies to Consumer Protection Claims Against Building Contractors

    January 28, 2019 —
    In Bridgwood v. A.J. Wood Construction, Inc., 105 N.E.3d 224 (Mass. 2018), the Supreme Court of Massachusetts determined that the statute of repose barred the plaintiff’s consumer protection claims commenced more than six years after the occurrence of the event that gave rise to the claims. In Bridgwood, the homeowner filed suit against the contractors who had performed renovations 15 years earlier. The homeowner asserted that concealed faulty electrical work caused a fire 11 years after the work was completed. The complaint alleged that the contractors, by violating Mass. Gen. Laws. Chapter 142A §17(10), committed an unfair and deceptive act pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 93A. Section 17(10) prohibits contractors from violating building laws and specifically states that a violation of Section 17(10) constitutes an unfair and deceptive act as defined by Chapter 93A. Chapter 93A is regarded as one of the most stringent consumer protection statutory schemes in the nation, and allows litigants to seek remedies such as treble damages and attorney fees. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams
    Ms. Warren may be contacted at

    “If It Walks Like A Duck . . .” – Expert Testimony Not Always Required In Realtor Malpractice Cases Where Alleged Breach Of Duty Can Be Easily Understood By Lay Persons

    April 17, 2019 —
    In Ryan v. Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc., et al. (No. D072724, filed 2/26/19), the Fourth Appellate District reversed a trial court’s granting of summary judgment and finding that expert testimony is not required in a professional negligence action where the claimed acts or omissions are within the understanding of a lay person. Daniel and Patricia Ryan hired Defendants David Schroedl, David Schroedl & Associates, and Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc., doing business as Pacific Sotheby’s International Realty to list, market, and sell their property. During an open house, the Ryans’ neighbor informed Defendant David Schroedl that he planned significant construction on his own property which would impact the Ryans’ property including, but not limited to, building a large addition that would obstruct the property’s westerly ocean view. Schroedl never disclosed this information to the Ryans or to the subsequent purchasers of the Ryans’ property. The day after escrow closed, the new owners’ interior decorator spoke with that neighbor who again explained his extensive remodeling plans. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Utah Supreme Court Allows Citizens to Block Real Estate Development Project by Voter Referendum

    June 10, 2019 —
    The Utah Supreme Court recently decided Baker v. Carlson, 2018 UT 59, which considered a developer’s ongoing effort to build a mixed-use, part-residential and part-commercial development on the site of the long-defunct Cottonwood Mall located in Holladay, Utah. On November 28, 2018, the Supreme Court affirmed the Third District Court’s ruling that a voter referendum to block the development was valid. This ruling calls into question the certainty of investment-backed real estate decisions in Utah and thus could carry negative implications for the Utah construction and real estate development communities. The Cottonwood Mall opened in the early 1960s, and for several decades was a popular regional shopping destination. But the mall fell on financial hard times in the mid-1990s, and since 2007 the 57-acre lot has sat vacant. Around that time, the owner of the lot made plans to redevelop it, and asked Holladay City to rezone the site to permit mixed uses. In response, the City rezoned the lot as Regional/Mixed-Use (R/M-U). The City also created a process to control the development of an R/M-U zone, requiring prospective builders to first submit a site development master plan—which sets forth guidelines for the overall development and design of the site—to the City for approval. After the City approves a master plan, the developer must enter into a development agreement with the City, giving the developer certain rights and addressing other development-related issues. Reprinted courtesy of Sean M. Mosman, Snell & Wilmer and Mark O. Morris, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Mosman may be contacted at Mr. Morris may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Deterioration Known To Insured Forecloses Collapse Coverage

    January 28, 2019 —
    The insurer properly denied coverage for collapse of a building when the insured knew from an expert’s examination that the walls of his house were deteriorating. Jaimes v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 2018 U. S. Dust. LEXIS 198224 (D. Colo. Nov. 21, 2018). The insured discovered a crack in the wall of his home. He hired Anchor Engineering to inspect. Anchor found a large bulge in the south wall. Several problems with deterioration were noted in the basement. The structure of the house was unstable and dangerous. The insured filed a claim with his homeowners insurer, Liberty. The claim was denied because damage to the wall was the result of deterioration. The south wall of the house later collapsed. The insured submitted a second claim. Liberty again denied the claim because the collapse was the result of deterioration of the wall. The insured sued. 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

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

    April 17, 2019 —
    The enforcement statutes applicable to the California Contractors’ State License Board aren’t exactly models in clarity. A few examples: 1. Business and Professions Code Section 7107: Abandonment without legal excuse of any construction project or operation engaged in or undertaken by the license as a contractor constitutes a cause for disciplinary action. 2. Business and Professions Code Section 7109: A willful departure in any material respect from accepted trade standards for good and workmanlike construction constitutes a cause for disciplinary action, unless the departure was in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by or under the direct supervision of an architect. 3. Business and Professions Code Section 7110: Willful or deliberate disregard and violation of the building laws of the state, or any political subdivision thereof, . . . or of the safety or labor laws or compensation insurance laws or Unemployment Insurance Code of the State, or of the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practice Act, or violation by any licensee of any provision of the Health and Safety Code or Water Code, relating to the digging, boring, or drilling of water wells, constitutes a cause for disciplinary action. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    New York Appellate Court Affirms 1966 Insurance Policy Continues to Cover WTC Asbestos Claims

    January 02, 2019 —
    In a prior post, we discussed a New York trial-court decision that found an insurance policy issued in 1966, to insure the construction of the World Trade Center, continues to cover modern-day asbestos claims, with each claim constituting an individual occurrence. Last week, in American Home Assurance Co. v. The Port Authority of N.Y. and N.J., 7628-7628A (1st Dep’t Nov. 15, 2018), an intermediate appellate court affirmed that decision, agreeing that coverage is triggered for claims tied to alleged asbestos exposure at the WTC site in the 1960s and ’70s. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joshua S. Paster, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at Mr. Paster may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Be Careful in Contracting and Business

    May 06, 2019 —
    After an hour long phone conference with a client, I have had several thoughts, only a few of which I can share here (grin). The first is that my friends and clients in the construction industry are hurting, but need to work with an attorney to assure that the pain is lessened. The second is that more, not less, precision is needed in construction contracting these days. The reason for the first thought is that the construction industry has taken a hit lately. The news is fraught with stories of the economic downturn and its impact on construction. While the money may be hard to part with, all construction professionals should get their contracts and business practices audited regularly to avoid risk and assure, as best as is possible, that they are protected. One place to get such triage is at my firm. If you don’t use me, please use someone else. On the second point, clients need attorney fees provisions, indemnity clauses and to assure that a scope of work is very specifically defined. Wiggle room is not available. In tough economic times. Owners will look for something closer to perfection when money is tight than when money is not. Contractors should also. Your contract is the first line of defense. While no contract can possibly cover every contingency and contracts are only as good as those who sign them when it comes right down to it, a good base contract is the best shield. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at