• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction expert witness Westfield Illinois concrete tilt-up expert witness Westfield Illinois structural steel construction expert witness Westfield Illinois condominiums expert witness Westfield Illinois high-rise construction expert witness Westfield Illinois Subterranean parking expert witness Westfield Illinois custom home expert witness Westfield Illinois housing expert witness Westfield Illinois Medical building expert witness Westfield Illinois industrial building expert witness Westfield Illinois office building expert witness Westfield Illinois multi family housing expert witness Westfield Illinois hospital construction expert witness Westfield Illinois low-income housing expert witness Westfield Illinois parking structure expert witness Westfield Illinois landscaping construction expert witness Westfield Illinois custom homes expert witness Westfield Illinois townhome construction expert witness Westfield Illinois institutional building expert witness Westfield Illinois condominium expert witness Westfield Illinois mid-rise construction expert witness Westfield Illinois production housing expert witness Westfield Illinois
    Westfield Illinois testifying construction expert witnessWestfield Illinois engineering consultantWestfield Illinois roofing construction expertWestfield Illinois architectural engineering expert witnessWestfield Illinois construction expert witnessWestfield Illinois forensic architectWestfield Illinois civil engineering 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

    Blackstone to Buy Cosmopolitan Resort for $1.73 Billion

    Insurers Get “Floored” by Court of Appeals Regarding the Presumptive Measure of Damages in Consent Judgments

    Court Says No to Additional Lawyer in Las Vegas Fraud Case

    U.S. Codes for Deck Attachment

    No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy

    Mortgage Interest Rates Increase on Newly Built Homes

    Incorporation, Indemnity and Statutes of Limitations, Oh My!

    Surety Bond Now a Valid Performance Guarantee for NC Developers (guest post)

    Landmark Towers Association, Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A. or: One Bad Apple Spoils the Whole Bunch

    Texas LGI Homes Goes After First-Time Homeowners

    Delays in Filing Lead to Dismissal in Moisture Intrusion Lawsuit

    AFL-CIO Joins in $10 Billion Infrastructure Plan

    Contractors Can No Longer Make Roof Repairs Following Their Own Inspections

    Basement Foundation Systems’ Getting an Overhaul

    Safety Data: Noon Presents the Hour of Greatest Danger

    There's No Such Thing as a Free House

    U.S. Firm Helps Thais to Pump Water From Cave to Save Boys

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

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

    Louisiana Couple Sues over Defects in Foreclosed Home

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Musk’s Cousins Battle Utilities to Make Solar Rooftops Cheap

    Existing U.S. Home Sales Rise to Second-Highest Since 2007

    Construction Slow to Begin in Superstorm Sandy Cases

    Pensacola Bridge Halted Due to Alleged Construction Defects

    Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Collapse Coverage Fails

    Subcontractor Sued for Alleged Defective Work

    CAPSA Changes Now in Effect

    Construction Law Breaking News: California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Beacon Residential Community Association

    Measure of Damages in Negligent Procurement of Surety Bonds / Insurance

    A Lot of Cheap Housing Is About to Get Very Expensive

    U.S. State Adoption of the National Electrical Code

    Subcontract Requiring Arbitration Outside of Florida

    Newmeyer & Dillion Selected to 2017 OCBJ’s Best Places to Work List

    Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Harmon Towers

    Georgia Coal-to-Solar Pivot Shows the Way on Climate Regs

    How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?

    2018 Update to EPA’s “Superfund Task Force Report”

    Eighth Circuit Affirms Judgment for Bad Faith after Insured's Home Destroyed by Fire

    New York Public Library’s “Most Comprehensive Renovation” In Its History

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 3- The Last Straw

    Kushners Abandon Property Bid as Pressures Mount Over Conflicts

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    Engineer TRC Fends Off Lawsuits After Merger

    Homebuilders See Record Bearish Bets on Shaky Recovery

    The Creation of San Fransokyo

    Collapse Claim Dismissed

    FAA Plans Final Regulation on Commercial Drone Use by Mid-2016
    Corporate Profile


    The Westfield, 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 Westfield'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
    Westfield, Illinois

    Insurers in New Jersey Secure a Victory on Water Damage Claims, But How Big a Victory Likely Remains to be Seen

    April 03, 2019 —
    Property insurance policies commonly cover water damage caused by an accidental discharge or leakage of water from an on-site plumbing system and commonly exclude water damage caused by a sewer backup. So it’s not surprising that the cause of water damage is a common battleground between policyholders and insurers. In Salil v. Ohio Security Insurance Co., 2018 WL 6272930 (N.J. App. Div. Dec. 3, 2018), insurers scored a victory when the court held that the release of water and sewage into a restaurant was subject to a $25,000 sublimit for water damage caused by a sewer backup. But claims adjusters and policyholders confronted with water damage claims in New Jersey will no doubt continue to do battle over whether the Salil decision was a decisive victory for insurers or a limited one. In Salil, the insured landlord leased its building to a restaurant operator. After the insured’s tenant reported water and odor at the restaurant, the insured contacted a plumber, who informed the insured that a clog in the restaurant’s toilet caused Category 3 water to flow into the restaurant. The insured allegedly sustained approximately $160,000 in restoration costs and loss of business income. The plumber used a snake to clear the sewer line to remedy the issue. The restoration company confirmed the cause of the loss was a sewer back up. On this basis, the insurer determined that the cause of loss was a sewer backup. The policy excluded coverage for water damage caused by a sewer back-up, but an endorsement restored that coverage, subject to a $25,000 sub-limit for “direct physical loss or damaged caused by water… which backs up into a building or structure through sewers or drains which are directly connected to a sanitary sewer or septic system.” Pursuant to this endorsement, the insurer paid its $25,000 sublimit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at

    Almost Nothing Is Impossible

    October 30, 2018 —
    In today’s ever-changing legal and political climate, contractors are being forced to deal with events and circumstances that seemed improbable just a short time ago. These changing circumstances have led some contractors to question whether they are required to continue performing in the face of uncertainty and, in many cases, potentially large losses. The doctrines of impossibility and impracticability, if proven, can serve as powerful defenses and excuse performance of a construction contract. However, contractors should exercise great caution before relying on these defenses as an excuse for nonperformance, as the consequences of stopping work without proper justification can be disastrous. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian N. Krulick, Smith Currie
    Mr. Krulick 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

    Insurer Prohibited from Bringing Separate Contribution Action in Subrogation to Rights of Suspended Insured

    January 15, 2019 —
    In Travelers Property Casualty Co. of Amer. v. Engel Insulation, Inc. (No. C085753, filed 11/30/18), a California appeals court held that an insurer may not file its own action to assert claims solely as a subrogee of a suspended corporation, where the corporation could not otherwise assert the claims on its own behalf. In Engel, a homeowners association filed a construction defect action against the developer, Westlake. Travelers defended Westlake as an additional insured on the policy of a subcontractor. After the case settled, Travelers brought a subrogation action against another subcontractor for contribution to the defense costs. However, Westlake had its corporate status suspended for failure to pay taxes, and the subcontractor moved for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at Ms. Moore may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Survey: Workers Lack Awareness of Potentially Hazardous Nanomaterials

    December 11, 2018 —
    Microscopic nanoparticles are part of the mix in nearly 600 construction products. The particles add strength, durability and other desired characteristics. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at

    E-Commerce Logistics Test Limits of Tilt-Up Construction

    January 28, 2019 —
    While “fulfillment centers” and other e-commerce logistic facilities drive a hot market for the manufacturing sector, traditional construction methods such as tilt-up concrete panels are being pushed to ever-greater heights. At a recent project in Tulsa, Okla., contractor Clayco oversaw installation of tilt-up composite panels that reached 81 ft in height, using an unusual brace and a lot of careful pre-planning. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, ENR
    Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at

    New York Appellate Court Holds Insurer’s Failure to Defend Does Not Constitute a “Reasonable Excuse” Required to Overturn Judgment

    January 21, 2019 —
    A recent opinion by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (Second Department) highlights the potential risks for an insurer leaving an insured unrepresented while the insurer pursues other parties or insurers who may be primarily responsible for defending the insured. In refusing to overturn a default judgment entered against an insured while its insurer knew that a complaint had been filed but refused to defend, the New York court’s decision raises questions about how claims adjusters are to effectively manage new claims to prevent a default judgment being entered against the insured, while at the same time ensuring that the appropriate party or insurance company handles the insured’s defense. In Kaung Hea Lee v. 354 Management Inc., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7749 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 14, 2018) (354 Management) the underlying plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against the defendant insured due to its failure to answer the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs then moved to determine the extent of damages to which they were entitled by virtue of the default judgment. The defendant opposed that motion, relying on an affidavit from a senior liability claims adjuster employed by the defendant’s insurer. “In the affidavit, the claim adjuster stated that she did not assign an attorney to answer the complaint because the codefendant . . . was contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the defendant [insured], and she had been attempting to have either [the codefendant] or its insurer provide an attorney” for the defendant. However, it was determined that the claims adjuster knew about the plaintiffs’ complaint two weeks after the plaintiffs served it on the defendant and months before the plaintiffs moved for default judgment. Despite this knowledge, the defendant’s insurer did not provide a defense or, apparently, obtain an extension of time to respond to the complaint, which led to the default judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York State Trial Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

    January 21, 2019 —
    On November 21, 2018, the New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County, issued a summary-judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising from asbestos-related bodily injury claims against plaintiffs Carrier Corporation (Carrier) and Elliott Company (Elliott). See Carrier Corp., et al. v. Travelers Indem. Co., et al., Index No. 2005-EG-7032 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 21, 2018). First, the court held that under New York’s “injury in fact trigger of coverage,” injury occurs from the first date of exposure to asbestos through death or the filing of suit. The court primarily relied on: (1) New York federal court decisions and the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in In re Viking Pump, Inc., 148 A.3d 633 (Del. 2016) holding that injury continues from first exposure through death or the assertion of a claim; and (2) medical and scientific evidence that the plaintiffs had submitted in support of their motion. The court specifically declined to follow Continental Cas. v. Wausau, 60 A.D.3d 128 (1st Dep’t 2008) (Keasbey), in which the New York Appellate Division found a question of fact whether injury occurs from exposure to asbestos through manifestation and that summary judgment was therefore inappropriate. The Carrier court stated that Keasbey was distinguishable because it “involved operations coverage, a non-product claim, and thus the [Keasbey] Court required a more stringent proof of injury in fact than is necessary here, in a products case.” Carrier, op. at 8. The Carrier court was also dismissive of affidavits offered by the defendant-insurer’s medical experts, finding that the affidavits did not create an issue of fact. See Op. at 2-9. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Paul Briganti, White and Williams
    Mr. Briganti may be contacted at