• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building expert witness Zenda Kansas custom home expert witness Zenda Kansas parking structure expert witness Zenda Kansas landscaping construction expert witness Zenda Kansas condominiums expert witness Zenda Kansas tract home expert witness Zenda Kansas retail construction expert witness Zenda Kansas mid-rise construction expert witness Zenda Kansas institutional building expert witness Zenda Kansas high-rise construction expert witness Zenda Kansas Subterranean parking expert witness Zenda Kansas condominium expert witness Zenda Kansas production housing expert witness Zenda Kansas multi family housing expert witness Zenda Kansas low-income housing expert witness Zenda Kansas townhome construction expert witness Zenda Kansas office building expert witness Zenda Kansas concrete tilt-up expert witness Zenda Kansas structural steel construction expert witness Zenda Kansas housing expert witness Zenda Kansas Medical building expert witness Zenda Kansas casino resort expert witness Zenda Kansas
    Zenda Kansas building code compliance expert witnessZenda Kansas construction project management expert witnessZenda Kansas construction defect expert witnessZenda Kansas construction defect expert witnessZenda Kansas expert witness structural engineerZenda Kansas forensic architectZenda Kansas window expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Zenda, Kansas

    Kansas Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB 2294 requires a claimant to serve a written notice of claim upon the contractor prior to filing a lawsuit. The law places deadlines on the contractor to serve notice on each subcontractor (15 days) and provide a written response to the claimant (30 days). It permits the claimant to file a lawsuit without further notice if the contractor disputes the claim, does not respond to the notice, does not complete work on the defect on a timely basis or does not make a payment in the time allowed.

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Zenda Kansas

    No state license for general contracting. All businesses must register with the Department of Revenue.

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Wichita Area Builders Association
    Local # 1780
    730 N Main St
    Wichita, KS 67203

    Zenda Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Hutchinson
    Local # 1720
    PO Box 2209
    Hutchinson, KS 67504

    Zenda Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    McPherson Area Contractors Association
    Local # 1735
    PO Box 38
    McPherson, KS 67460
    Zenda Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Salina
    Local # 1750
    2125 Crawford Place
    Salina, KS 67401

    Zenda Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Lawrence Home Builders Association
    Local # 1723
    PO Box 3490
    Lawrence, KS 66046

    Zenda Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Topeka Home Builders Association
    Local # 1765
    1505 SW Fairlawn Rd
    Topeka, KS 66604

    Zenda Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Kansas Home Builders Association
    Local # 1700
    212 SW 8th Ave Ste 201
    Topeka, KS 66603

    Zenda Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Zenda Kansas

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    Coverage Under Builder's Risk Policy Properly Excluded for Damage to Existing Structure Only

    Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

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

    No Repeal Process for Rejected Superstorm Sandy Grant Applications

    Coverage Issues: When You Need Your Own Lawyer in a Construction Defect Suit

    Drafting a Contractual Arbitration Provision

    Developer Africa Israel Wins a Round in New York Condominium Battle

    Wake County Justice Center- a LEED Silver Project done right!

    Blog: Congress Strikes a Blow to President Obama’s “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” Executive Order 13673

    Rise in Home Building Helps Other Job Sectors

    Sixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    School Board Sues Multiple Firms over Site Excavation Problem

    Arizona Court of Appeals Awards Attorneys’ Fees in Quiet-Title Action

    Nebraska’s Prompt Pay Act for 2015

    Endorsements Preclude Coverage for Alleged Faulty Workmanship

    Harborside Condo Construction Defect Settlement Moves Forward

    CGL Insurer’s Duty To Defend Broader Than Duty To Indemnify And Based On Allegations In Underlying Complaint

    Homeowner may pursue negligence claim for construction defect, Oregon Supreme Court holds

    London’s Best Districts Draw Buyers on Italian Triple Dip

    Precast Standards' Work Under Way as Brittle Fracture Warnings Aired

    General Partner Is Not Additional Insured For Construction Defect Claim

    California Imposes New Disabled Access Obligations on Commercial Property Owners

    Why Construction Law- An Update

    No Coverage For Wind And Flood Damage Suffered From Superstorm Sandy

    Lien Claimant’s Right to Execute against Bond Upheld in Court of Appeals

    Congratulations to Jonathan Kaplan on his Promotion to Partner!

    Reconciling Prompt Payments and Withholding of Retention Payments

    Short-Term Rental Legislation & Litigation On the Way!

    Carillion Fallout Affects Major Hospital Project in Liverpool

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Florida “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” and “Your Work” Exclusion

    Rescission of Policy for Misrepresentation in Application Reversed

    Washington State Enacts Law Restricting Non-Compete Agreements

    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law

    Purse Tycoon Aims at Ultra-Rich With $85 Million Home

    “I Didn’t Sign That!” – Applicability of Waivers of Subrogation to Non-Signatory Third Parties

    County Officials Refute Resident’s Statement that Defect Repairs Improper

    Florida Governor Signs Construction Defect Amendments into Law

    Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim

    DE Confirms Robust D&O Protection Despite Company Demise

    Court Holds That Property Insurance Does Not Cover Economic Loss From Purchasing Counterfeit Vintage Wine

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Tar Escaping From Roof

    London Penthouse Will Offer Chance to Look Down at Royalty

    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

    First Suit to Enforce Business-Interruption Coverage Filed

    While You Were Getting Worked Up Over Oil Prices, This Just Happened to Solar

    New Jersey Condominium Owners Sue FEMA

    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Rules General Contractors Can Contractually Subordinate Mechanics Lien Rights
    Corporate Profile


    The Zenda, Kansas 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 Zenda'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
    Zenda, Kansas

    Fifth Circuit: Primary Insurer Relieved of Duty to Defend Without Release of Liability of Insured

    March 02, 2020 —
    In Aggreko, LLC v. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co.,1 the Fifth Circuit affirmed a decision by the Texas District Court and held that a Covenant Not to Execute constituted a “settlement” sufficient to exhaust policy limits and terminate a primary insurer’s duty to defend. This case arose out of a wrongful death suit filed by the parents of James Brenek II (“Brenek”). In 2014, Brenek was fatally electrocuted by an electrically energized generator housing cabinet while performing work on a rig in Texas for Guichard Operating Company, LLC (“Guichard”), a Louisiana-based drilling subcontractor. Guichard had leased the generator from Aggreko, LLC (“Aggreko”). A rental agreement between Guichard and Aggreko required Guichard to maintain commercial general liability insurance during the lease period and list Aggreko and the rig owner, Rutherford Oil Corporation (“Rutherford”), as additional insureds under the policy. Guichard’s primary insurance carrier, The Gray Insurance Company (“Gray”), agreed to defend and indemnify Aggreko and Rutherford in the wrongful death suit. The Gray policy had a limit of $1,000,000, subject to a $50,000 self-insured retention. Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Ashley McWilliams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Barrese may be contacted at Ms. McWilliams may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Indemnification Against Release/“Disposal” of Hazardous Materials

    May 18, 2020 —
    It is very common, if not nearly an industry standard, for construction contracts and subcontracts to contain provisions addressing the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials. Many of these provisions require a contractor or subcontractor to discontinue work where hazardous materials are discovered. An example of such a clause can be found in the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Document A201 (2017), Section 10.3.1, which states in part:
    If the Contractor encounters a hazardous material or substance not addressed in the Contract Documents and if reasonable precautions will be inadequate to prevent foreseeable bodily injury or death to persons resulting from a material or substance, including but not limited to asbestos or polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), encountered on the site by the Contractor, the Contractor shall, upon recognizing the condition, immediately stop Work in the affected area and notify the Owner and Architect of the condition.
    A similar clause in ConsensusDocs does not require the contractor to stop work, but provides that the “Contractor shall not be obligated to commence or continue work until any Hazardous Material discovered at the Work site has been removed, rendered or determined to be harmless by the Owner as certified by an independent testing laboratory and approved by the appropriate government agency.” Reprinted courtesy of Brian S. Wood, Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP and Miranda R. Millerick, Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP Mr. Wood may be contacted at Ms. Millerick may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    First Suit Filed for Losses Caused by COVID-19

    March 30, 2020 —
    Last week, the first lawsuit was filed seeking insurance coverage for business-interruption due to losses caused by COVID-19. The case, Cajun Conti, LLC, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, ,et al., was filed in Louisiana. A New Orleans restaurant, Oceana Grill," seeks a declaratory judgment that its "all risks" policy issued by Lloyd's covers losses resulting from the closure of its restaurant due to the Governor's order restricting public gatherings and the Mayor of New Orleans' order closing restaurants. The lawsuit contends that "contamination of the insured premises by the coronavirus would be a direct physical loss needing remediation to clean the surfaces of the establishment." The lawsuit further alleges the policy contains no exclusions for a "viral pandemic." The suit seeks a declaration that "the policy provides coverage to plaintiffs for any future civil authority shutdowns of restaurants in the New Orleans area due to physical loss from coronavirus contamination and that the policy provides business income coverage in the event that the coronavirus has contaminated the insured premises." The obvious dispute will be whether the coronavirus constitutes a "direct physical loss or damage" as required by the policy. 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

    Your Bad Faith Jury Instruction Against an Insurer is Important

    March 09, 2020 —
    A statutory bad faith claim against an insurer is derived from Florida Statute s. 624.155. A bad faith claim against a first party insurer, such as a property insurer, must be statutory. Check out the hyperlink of the statute, but a party must first file a Civil Remedy Notice identifying the statutory violations to preserve the statutory bad faith claim giving the insurer an opportunity to cure. In a noteworthy case, Cooper v. Federated National Insurance Company, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2961a (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), the Fifth District Court of Appeal dealt with the jury instruction for an insured’s statutory bad faith claim against their property insurer. The insured filed a bad faith claim predicated on the property insurer violating the provisions of Florida Statute s. 626.9541(1)(i)3, which involves unfair claim settlement practices. The insured had a jury trial and submitted a proposed jury instruction regarding bad faith that tracked the very essence of their bad faith claim and was modeled after s. 626.9541(1)(i)(3). The trial court, however, denied this jury instruction, instead adopting a standard jury instruction for bad faith. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the property insurer and the insured appealed arguing it was reversible error for the trial court NOT to present to the jury their bad faith jury instruction. The Fifth District agreed and ordered a new trial finding that the trial court’s failure to present the jury instruction amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    COVID-19 Could Impact Contractor Performance Bonds

    March 30, 2020 —
    As COVID-19 continues to expand around the United States and the world, it may only be a matter of time before U.S. construction projects are affected by the virus. Performance bonds guarantee that a project will be completed by a contractor according to the contract. However, what if a contractor cannot complete a project on time due to widespread disease? What, if any, impact could the virus have on a contractor’s surety bond program? Risk Factors Several risks associated with the virus could trigger a performance bond claim. 1. Materials. The Chinese account for a large supply of construction materials, including steel, copper, cabinetry, etc. An inability to obtain these materials could significantly delay or stop a project all together. Even if a contractor is able to obtain them from other sources, it may be at a significantly higher cost than they put into the bid. 2. Labor. There is already a shortage of qualified labor in the construction industry. Additionally, construction already lends itself to the spreading of viruses; workers are often in close proximity, handling common materials, and they may not have an easily accessible place to wash their hands. Furthermore, even though many now have paid sick leave, there is often pressure not to use it. These things could magnify the labor shortage and make it difficult to complete projects on time. 3. Safety. Finally, the world is having a serious shortage of respirators. Because of widespread panic, many people have been purchasing N95 respirators—so much that the Surgeon General has asked people to stop buying them. It has created a shortage for people who really need them, like contractors. If contractors can’t get these safety masks, certain trades will either be unable to work, or risk continuing the project without masks, which would endanger workers and open them up to OSHA penalties. Reprinted courtesy of Ben Williams and MG Surety, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Williams may be contacted at

    Ensuring Efficient Arbitration of Construction Disputes Involving Mechanic’s Liens

    February 18, 2020 —
    There may be tension between the enforcement of statutory mechanic’s lien claims when a contractual dispute resolution provision calls for arbitration. Once the parties are in arbitration, it may not be clear whether the arbitrator has authority to make factual determinations regarding amount and validity of mechanic’s liens, and whether courts are bound by these determinations. This uncertainty stems from the fact that in most states a mechanic’s lien can only be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction. Indeed, many mechanic’s liens statutes define foreclosure as a “judicial process,” and courts generally have exclusive jurisdiction to issue orders foreclosing on real property1. The risk for contractors and owners is that they will spend time and money re-litigating factual issues related to proving elements of a mechanic’s lien claim, including the proper lien amount, timeliness and other prerequisites. Without a clear understanding of what issues and elements are arbitrable, the parties run the risk that an arbitrator will rule on certain elements only to find out during post-arbitration lien foreclosure proceedings that the arbitrator lacked authority to make determinations on those elements. Questions therefore arise whether a court will enforce the arbitrator’s determinations and whether the parties must relitigate mechanic’s lien issues creating a further risk of inconsistent rulings. These risks can be minimized through arbitration provisions which address these issues, express requests in arbitration demands and by ensuring that arbitration awards contain explicit determinations of mechanic’s liens issues. Reprinted courtesy of Robert G. Campbell & Trevor B. Potter, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Potter may be contacted at Mr. Campbell may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Navigating Abandonment of a Construction Project

    March 02, 2020 —
    No construction or real estate developments goes completely as planned. Despite the expectation that modifications will likely be necessary to finalize a project, far too many parties suffer losses related to these projects. In California, abandonment of a project without legal excuse gives rise to a legal claim. An abandonment occurs if there was a material failure to complete any construction project or operation for the price stated in the contract or in any modification of the contact. If abandonment occurs, litigation likely follows. Disputes most commonly arise when the parties fail to retain a paper trail. Therefore, to limit litigation, document everything. Change orders can offer protection, but they must be in writing. Handshakes or oral promises are not sufficient. Rather, obtain written agreements signed by the contractor, and retain all documentation provided by the contractor, including invoices, receipts, work estimates and change orders. If the construction project has been abandoned, take photographs and/or videos of the job as it appears. To mitigate damages, preserve any leftover materials that a new contractor may be able to use. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara

    HHMR is pleased to announce that David McLain has been selected as a 2020 Super Lawyer

    June 29, 2020 —
    David McLain is a founding member of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell. Mr. McLain has over 22 years of experience and is well known for his work in the defense of the construction industry, particularly in the area of construction defect litigation. He is a member of the Executive Committee of the CLM Claims College - School of Construction, which is the premier course for insurance, industry, and legal professionals. Law Week Colorado recently named Mr. McLain as the 2019 People’s Choice for Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants. HHMR is highly regarded for its expertise in construction law and the litigation of construction-related claims, including the defense of large and complex construction defect matters. Our attorneys provide exceptional service to individuals, business owners, and Fortune 500 companies. The firm is experienced in providing legal support throughout trials and alternative dispute resolution such as mediations and arbitrations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at