• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois landscaping construction expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois custom home expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois concrete tilt-up expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois casino resort expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois tract home expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois townhome construction expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois low-income housing expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois multi family housing expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois industrial building expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois condominiums expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois retail construction expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois housing expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois condominium expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois office building expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois mid-rise construction expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois hospital construction expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois custom homes expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois parking structure expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois Subterranean parking expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois production housing expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois institutional building expert witness Burr Ridge Illinois
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Burr Ridge, 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 Burr Ridge Illinois

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

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Southern Illinois
    Local # 1466
    PO Box 510
    Cobden, IL 62920

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

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

    Springfield Area Home Builders Association
    Local # 1470
    3921 Pintail Dr Ste B
    Springfield, IL 62711

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

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

    Home Builders Association of Quincy
    Local # 1460
    PO Box 3615
    Quincy, IL 62305

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Burr Ridge Illinois

    DOJ to Prosecute Philadelphia Roofing Company for Worker’s Death

    California Supreme Court Endorses City Authority to Adopt Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

    Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor's Employee

    Where Mechanic’s Liens and Contracts Collide

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

    New Notary Language For Mechanics Lien Releases and Stop Payment Notice Releases

    Construction Spending Drops in March

    BHA Has a Nice Swing

    Construction Defect Claim over LAX Runways

    Updated: Happenings in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Not So Unambiguous: California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Additional Insured

    Construction Defects as Occurrences, Better Decided in Law than in Courts

    Modernist Houses Galore! [visual candy for architects]

    Colorado Passes Construction Defect Reform Bill

    Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement

    California Appeals Court Says Loss of Use Is “Property Damage” Under Liability Policy, and Damages Can be Measured by Diminished Value

    Revisiting OSHA’s Controlling Employer Policy

    Merger to Create Massive Los Angeles Construction Firm

    How BIM Can Serve Building Owners

    Acceptable Worksite: New City of Seattle Specification Provisions Now In Effect

    Wisconsin “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

    Client Alert: Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Status as Undocumented Alien to Prospective Jury Panel Grounds for Mistrial

    Developer Africa Israel Wins a Round in New York Condominium Battle

    Housing Inventory Might be Distorted by Pocket Listings

    July 1, 2015 Statutory Changes Affecting Virginia Contractors and Subcontractors

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    White and Williams Announces the Election of Five Lawyers to the Partnership and the Promotion of Five Associates to Counsel

    New York Appeals Court Rekindles the Spark

    Court’s Ruling on SB800 “Surprising to Some”

    Loss Ensuing from Alleged Faulty Workmanship is Covered

    August Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Appreciate at Faster Pace

    Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove

    On Rehearing, Fifth Circuit Finds Contractual-Liability Exclusion Does Not Apply

    The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

    Homebuyers Aren't Sweating the Fed

    SB800 Not the Only Remedy for Construction Defects

    Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

    Amid the Chaos, Trump Signs Executive Order Streamlining Environmental Permitting and Disbands Infrastructure Council

    #8 CDJ Topic: The Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case Concludes but Controversy Continues

    New Hampshire Asbestos Abatement Firm Pleads Guilty in Federal Fraud Case

    Louisiana Couple Claims Hurricane Revealed Construction Defects

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    The Overlooked Nevada Rule In an Arena Project Lawsuit

    Fourth Circuit Issues New Ruling on Point Sources Under the CWA

    A Homeowner’s Subsequent Action is Barred as a Matter of Law by way of a Prior “Right to Repair Act” Claim Resolved by Cash Settlement for Waiver of all Known or Unknown Claims

    Port Authority Reaches Deal on Silverstein 3 World Trade

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolution Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

    Why Is California Rebuilding in Fire Country? Because You’re Paying for It

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions
    Corporate Profile


    Drawing from more than four thousand construction related expert witness designations, the Burr Ridge, Illinois Construction Expert Directory delivers a wide range of trial support and consulting services to lawyers and construction practice groups concerned with construction defect and claims litigation. BHA provides construction related consulting and expert witness support services to the nation's most recognized builders, risk managers, legal professionals, owners, state and local government agencies. Employing in house resources which comprise design experts, civil / structural engineers, ICC Certified Inspectors, ASPE certified professional estimators, the firm brings regional experience and flexible capabilities to the Burr Ridge construction industry.

    Burr Ridge Illinois construction scheduling expert witnessBurr Ridge Illinois expert witness roofingBurr Ridge Illinois building expertBurr Ridge Illinois construction claims expert witnessBurr Ridge Illinois expert witnesses fenestrationBurr Ridge Illinois construction expert witness consultantBurr Ridge Illinois architectural engineering expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Burr Ridge, Illinois

    New California Construction Law for 2019

    January 02, 2019 —
    The California Legislature introduced over 2637 bills in the second half of the 2017-2018 session. This article summarizes some of the more important bills affecting contractors in their roles as contractors, effective January 1, 2019, unless otherwise noted. Not addressed here are many other bills that will affect contractors in their roles as businesses, taxpayers, and employers. Each of the summaries is brief, focusing on what is most important to contractors. Because not all aspects of these bills are discussed, each summary’s title is a live link to the full text of the referenced bills for those wanting to explore the details of the new laws. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel F. McLennon, Smith Currie
    Mr. McLennon may be contacted at

    AB 3018: Amendments to the Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements on California Public Projects

    February 18, 2019 —
    What California Contractors Need To Know About AB 3018 California contractors used to face limited consequences for non-compliance with the state’s skilled and trained workforce requirements on public works projects. A sea-change to the statutory landscape went into effect on January 1, 2019 as a result of Assembly Bill No. 3018 (“AB 3018”).1 The Code re-defines what constitutes a skilled/trained workforce by eliminating existing exemptions, strengthens monthly reporting guidelines and agency oversight, and empowers the Labor Commissioner and public agencies with enforcement tools that include monetary penalties and debarment. Contractors who fail to institute a program to comply with AB 3018’s reporting requirements do so at their peril. What Does The 30% Requirement Mean? Previously, in order to comply with the skilled workforce requirements2, 30% of skilled journeypersons had to be graduates of an apprenticeship program, except for certain listed trades which were exempt from the apprenticeship percentage requirement3. AB 3018 eliminates this exception for the listed occupations and requires 30% of all trades to be comprised of apprenticeship program graduates. Reprinted courtesy of Alex R. Baghdassarian, Peckar & Abramson and Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Baghdassarian may be contacted at Mr. Cohen may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    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

    Joint Venture Dispute Over Profits

    January 28, 2019 —
    A recent Georgia Court of Appeals case demonstrates the risk of joint ventures failing to carefully define accounting rules in their joint venture agreement. Two trade contractors teamed up to accomplish certain tasks on a job at a wastewater lift station at Fort Gordon. A joint venture agreement provided for an equal split of the profits and losses. Unfortunately, the parties did not define “profit,” and particularly did not define what cost would be deducted in calculating profit. They disputed in particular whether certain large payments to individuals and 15% overhead charges should be deducted in calculating profits. One party presented the expert testimony of an accountant while the other did not. The party presenting expert testimony asked the court to dismiss the other party’s claim because it was not supported by expert testimony of an accountant. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the claim. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Jr., Autry, Hall, & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at

    More thoughts on Virginia Mechanic’s Liens

    January 28, 2019 —
    As we settled yet another construction case on the courthouse steps today, I began to think about what I should post to begin 2009. Of course, given the construction industry slowdown that is predicted, and the trend at construction projects around the Commonwealth of Virginia that looks to me as if payments will be harder to come by from Owners less willing, for financial reasons, to work with contractors, mechanic’s liens will be more useful, and necessary, now than ever. Virginia mechanic’s liens are unusually strong because your memorandum of lien takes priority over all prior liens on the property that you have improved (including from the bank that is financing the project) except in very limited circumstances. What this means is that, should you properly file and sue to enforce your lien, you get to foreclose and have first crack at any money. By contrast, a judgment lien takes priority only over liens filed after the lien is recorded. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Finding of No Coverage Overturned Due to Lack of Actual Policy

    March 18, 2019 —
    The Appellate Division overturned a verdict for the insurer when the actual policy was never introduced at trial. Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. B&F Land Dev. Corp., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 264 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan 16, 2018). The decedent was killed when he fell through a skylight while working on a premises owned by B&F Land Development Corporation. The estate sued B&F for wrongful death. B&F tendered to its carrier, Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual (PLM). PLM issued a reservations of rights. It later denied coverage because the location of the loss was not a location listed on the policy, an exclusion barred coverage for bodily injury arising out of B&F's ongoing operations conducted by it or on its behalf, and the loss was not reported to PLM as soon as practicable. PLM sued B&F and the estate for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify. A default judgment was entered against B&F after it failed to answer. Trial proceeded against the estate 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

    A Word to the Wise: The AIA Revised Contract Documents Could Lead to New and Unanticipated Risks - Part II

    October 16, 2018 —
    Part I addressed general conditions, revised insurance terms, revisions that affect owner’s required insurance and revisions that affect contractor’s required insurance. REVISIONS THAT AFFECT DISPUTE RESOLUTION A seemingly minor but noteworthy change is to the definition of “Claim.” Under Section 15.1 a “Claim” is defined to:
    • include a request for a modification of contract time; and
    • exclude any requirement that an owner must file a claim to impose liquidated damages.
    Notably, any request relating to contract time must be brought within the specified time period for Notice of Claim and in the prescribed manner. There are at least two traps for the unwary. First, even though email is regularly used for communications among the parties, the revised contract documents do not recognize email as an acceptable form of delivery of a Notice of Claim. Second, an unwary contractor may wrongly assume that an owner’s failure to assert a claim for LDs means that LDs will not be imposed. This may lull the contractor into failing to timely assert its own claim for a time extension and thereby waiving its ability to do so. Reprinted courtesy of George Talarico, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Talarico may be contacted at

    Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

    November 28, 2018 —
    The Second Circuit recently held that competing “anti-concurrent cause” provisions in a commercial property policy present a potential ambiguity that could result in favor of coverage for losses sustained by Madelaine Chocolate after storm surge from Hurricane Sandy combined to cause substantial damage to Madelaine’s property and a resulting loss of income. Madelaine was insured under an all-risk insurance policy issued by Chubb subsidiary Great Northern Insurance Company. By endorsement, Madelaine’s policy added “windstorm” as a covered peril and defined “windstorm” as “wind… regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributes concurrently to, or contributed in any sequence to, the loss or damage.” The policy also included a common flood exclusion that removed coverage for loss or damage caused by or resulting from waves, tidal water, or tidal waves, or the rising, overflowing, or breaking of any natural harbors, oceans, or any other body of water, whether driven by wind or not. Like the windstorm endorsement, the flood exclusion contained concurrency language that broadened the exclusion to any loss to which flood contributed, regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributed to the loss. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Tae Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at Mr. Andrews may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of