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

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


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Hutchinson
    Local # 1720
    PO Box 2209
    Hutchinson, KS 67504
    http://www.hutchbuilders.org

    McPherson Area Contractors Association
    Local # 1735
    PO Box 38
    McPherson, KS 67460


    Wichita Area Builders Association
    Local # 1780
    730 N Main St
    Wichita, KS 67203
    http://www.wabahome.com

    Home Builders Association of Salina
    Local # 1750
    2125 Crawford Place
    Salina, KS 67401
    http://www.salinahba.com

    Lawrence Home Builders Association
    Local # 1723
    PO Box 3490
    Lawrence, KS 66046
    http://www.lhba.net

    Topeka Home Builders Association
    Local # 1765
    1505 SW Fairlawn Rd
    Topeka, KS 66604
    http://www.thba.com

    Kansas Home Builders Association
    Local # 1700
    212 SW 8th Ave Ste 201
    Topeka, KS 66603
    http://www.kansasbuilders.org


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Colony Kansas

    General Contractors Must Plan to Limit Liability for Subcontractor Injury

    Kushner Cos. Probed Over Harassment of Low-Income Tenants

    Recent Bad Faith Decisions in Florida Raise Concerns

    Century Communities Acquires Dunhill Homes Las Vegas Operations

    New York Bars Developers from Selling Condos due to CD Fraud Case

    Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Harmon Towers

    Contract Change #8: Direct Communications between Owners and Contractors (law note)

    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

    Construction Defects Checklist

    Faulty Workmanship may be an Occurrence in Indiana CGL Policies

    CSLB Joint Venture Licenses – Providing Contractors With The Means To Expand Their Businesses

    #2 CDJ Topic: Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools

    Litigation Counsel of America Honors Partner Victor Anderson with Peter Perlman Award

    Blackstone to Buy Apartments From Greystar in $2 Billion Deal

    Reversing Itself, West Virginia Supreme Court Holds Construction Defects Are Covered

    Contractors and Force Majeure: Contractual Protection from Hurricanes and Severe Weather

    Don’t Let Construction Problems Become Construction Disputes (guest post)

    Texas Supreme Court: Breach of Contract Not Required to Prevail on Statutory Bad Faith Claim

    Single-Family Home Gain Brightens U.S. Housing Outlook: Economy

    Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    Washington Court Limits Lien Rights of Construction Managers

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

    Construction Defect Claim Not Timely Filed

    Before Collapse, Communications Failed to Save Bridge Project

    Dealing with Hazardous Substances on the Construction Site

    Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending

    Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate

    Affirmed

    The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia

    Professional Liability Alert: Joint Client Can't Claim Privilege For Communications With Attorney Sued By Another Joint Client

    CDJ’s #8 Topic of the Year: California’s Board of Equalization Tower

    Coverage Doomed for Failing Obtain Insurer's Consent for Settlement

    Construction Defect Class Action Lawsuit Alleges National Cover-up of Pipe Defects

    Union THUGS Plead Guilty

    Limitations on the Ability to Withdraw and De-Annex Property from a Common Interest Community

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

    Acord Certificates of Liability Insurance: What They Don’t Tell You Can Hurt You

    Governor Murphy Approves Legislation Implementing Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey

    ETF Bulls Bet Spring Will Thaw the U.S. Housing Market

    NY Supreme Court Rules City Not Liable for Defective Sidewalk

    New California Construction Laws for 2020

    CA Supreme Court Set to Rule on Important Occurrence Issue Certified by Ninth Circuit

    Colorado Passes Construction Defect Reform Bill

    South Dakota Supreme Court Holds That Faulty Workmanship Constitutes an “Occurrence”

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    Be Careful with “Green” Construction

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Allegations of Collapse Rejected

    Builders Arrested after Building Collapses in India

    Hawaii Federal Court Grants Insured's Motion for Remand

    When to Withhold Retention Payments on Private or Public Projects
    Corporate Profile

    COLONY KANSAS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from approximately 5000 building and construction related expert designations, the Colony, Kansas Construction Expert Directory provides a single point of reference for construction defect and claims related support to legal professionals and construction practice groups seeking meaningful resolution of construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides construction related trial support and expert consulting services to the building industry's most recognized companies, Fortune 500 builders, CGL carriers, risk managers, and a variety of municipalities. Employing in house resources which comprise construction standard of care consultants, registered architects, professional engineers, and credentialed building envelope experts, the construction experts group brings national experience and local capabilities to Colony and the surrounding areas.

    Colony Kansas roofing and waterproofing expert witnessColony Kansas fenestration expert witnessColony Kansas construction safety expertColony Kansas construction forensic expert witnessColony Kansas soil failure expert witnessColony Kansas construction expert witness public projectsColony Kansas civil engineering expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Colony, Kansas

    Earth Movement Exclusion Precludes Coverage

    July 20, 2020 —
    The Federal District Court, District of Hawaii, found the earth movement exclusion barred coverage for the contractor when a landslide damaged the property. North River Ins. Co. v. H.K. Constr. Corp., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90110 (D. Haw. May 22, 2020). Bruce and Yulin Bingle sued HK for damage caused to the Bingle property. HK was hired as the contractor for the construction of a new residence and improvements on their property in Kaneohe. HK excavated near the boundary of the neighbors' and the Bingle's property in order to cut the existing slope to build a retaining wall. Due to the excavation work, the slope on the Bingle property failed and soil eroded away. At the time, the Bingles were selling their property. Due to the landslide, the buyer decided not to buy the property. The Department of Planning and Permitting issued a Notice of Violation for failure to obtain a grading permit. HK notified its carrier, North River. North River agreed to defend under a reservation of rights, but then filed suit against HK for a declaratory judgment. 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 te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Haight’s 2020 San Diego Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    July 06, 2020 —
    Haight congratulates partners Michael Parme and Arezoo Jamshidi who were selected to the 2020 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. Each year no more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    CISA Guidance 3.1: Not Much Change for Construction

    June 22, 2020 —
    This week, the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued Version 3.1 of its Guidance on the Essential Critical Infrastructure Workforce. For the most part, CISA’s Guidance 3.1 did not change from Version 3.0 as it relates to construction. However, CISA added a few construction-related services to “Essential Critical Infrastructure”:
    • “Workers who support the construction and maintenance of electric vehicle charging stations.”
    • “Engineers performing or supporting safety inspections.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Laura Bourgeois LoBue, Pillsbury
    Ms. LoBue may be contacted at laura.lobue@pillsburylaw.com

    It Has Started: Supply-Chain, Warehouse and Retail Workers of Essential Businesses Are Filing Suit

    June 22, 2020 —
    Supply-chain businesses that are appropriately characterized as “essential” have remained open for the delivery of critical supplies while everyone else has been told to close up shop and stay home. Now essential-business employees are contracting COVID-19 and filing suit. Following up on our earlier piece — “Is a Violation of a COVID-19 Order the Basis For Civil Liability?” — it is important to recognize that government directives, oftentimes couched as “recommendations,” can come to define what it means to provide a reasonably safe workplace that protects employees from COVID-19. While common law negligence defenses consider the reasonableness of conduct, these directives will likely become the standard. The cases that have been filed are overwhelmingly premised upon the timeless negligence construct. The negligence construct, simply put, imposes a duty to act as a reasonable person would under the circumstances. Nonetheless, while the negligence construct lives in the ordinary world of “reasonableness,” infection-control guidance lives in the rapidly developing world of the science of COVID-19. Guidance on seemingly basic questions, such as the methods of transmission (e.g., personal contact, mucus membrane only, airborne transmission) or even the virus’s shelf life on different surfaces, of particular interest packaging and material handling equipment, can change by the day. All of this provides challenges for the supply-side business looking to protect its workforce. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys James Burger, Robert Devine and Douglas Weck Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Weck may be contacted at weckd@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Privacy In Pandemic: Senators Announce Covid-19 Data Privacy Bill

    May 11, 2020 —
    "Data! Data! Data!. . . I can't make bricks without clay." This classic statement from Sherlock Holmes in The Adventure of the Copper Beeches takes on a new meaning in the COVID-19 pandemic. With the plans to begin contact tracing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic slowly moving towards the forefront, a valid and important issue presents itself: how do we treat and protect the data we so desperately need to trace, track, and address the pandemic? U.S. Senators Wicker, Thune, Moran, and Blackburn introduced a possible solution to this problem with the COVID-19 Consumer Data Protection Act, as announced on April 30, 2020. So what does the Act entail? What information is protected? What action would businesses need to take towards individuals, such as consumers or even employees, in order to comply with this new legislation? WHAT IS THE COVID-19 CONSUMER DATA PROTECTION ACT? The Act is meant to address the concern regarding data collection and privacy due to large companies, like Google and Apple, adjusting the software within their devices to facilitate digital contact tracing. The Act can be broken up into three parts - the treatment of information; the privacy notice requirements; and the transparency requirements. First, the Act prohibits the collection, processing, or transfer of certain categories of data without notice and the affirmative express consent of the individual, in order to:
    • Track the spread of COVID-19,
    • Trace the spread of COVID-19 through contact tracing, or
    • Determine compliance with social distancing guidelines without the requisite notice to individuals and their express consent.
    To accomplish this, the Act also restricts entities in their ability to collect excessive information, stating that an entity cannot collect information beyond what is reasonably necessary to conduct any of the three COVID-19 related purposes listed in the statute. The entity must also provide reasonable administrative, technical, and physical data security policies and practices to protect the information collected. Furthermore, in the event that the entity stops using the information for any of the three COVID-19 purposes, it must delete or de-identify the information it has collected. Next, the Act describes the requirements for notice to individuals. In order to legally collect, process or transfer the information, the entity needs to provide the consumer with prior notice of the purpose, processing, and transfer of the data through their privacy policy within 14 days of the enactment of the law. This policy would have to:
    • Disclose the consumer's rights in a clear and conspicuous manner prior to or at the point of collection,
    • Be available in a clear and conspicuous manner to the public,
    • Include whether the entity will transfer any of the information it collects in order to track or trace COVID-19 or determine compliance with social distancing,
    • Describe its data retention policy, and
    • Generally describe its data security measures.
    Notably, many of these are already requirements common to many privacy policies, including the disclosure regarding the transfer of an individual's information. In addition, an individual must give their affirmative express consent to such collection, processing and transfer. In other words, an individual must "opt-in" to having their information collected. This would be done through a checked box or electronic signature, as the law prohibits entities from inferring consent through a failure by the individual to take an action stopping the collection. Furthermore, the individual would also need the ability to expressly withdraw their consent, with the entity then having to cease collection, processing, or transfer of the information within 14 days of the revocation. In essence, due to the restriction on transferal, this may result in businesses opting to delete or de-identify data upon a revocation. Finally, the entity would have to abide by certain reporting and transparency requirements, namely a monthly public report stating how many individuals had information collected, processed or transferred, and describing the categories of the data collected, processed or transferred by the entity and why. This is akin to the California Consumer Privacy Act's treatment of categories of information, though it would require this information to be released on an ongoing, monthly basis. WHAT DATA IS COVERED? Notably, the Act only affects a very limited scope of data. The Act covers geolocation data (exact real-time locations), proximity data (approximated location data), and Personal Health Information (any genetic/diagnosis information that can identify someone). This could cover information like Bluetooth communication or real-time tracking based on a cell phone's geolocation features. Notably, Personal Health Information does not include any information that may be covered under HIPAA or the broader categorization of "Biometric" data (i.e. retinal scans, finger prints, etc). Furthermore, and more generally, "publicly available information" is excluded, which includes information from telephone books or online directories, the news media, "video, internet, or audio content" as well as "websites available to the general public on an unrestricted basis." The latter of which potentially would push any and all information made available through social media (i.e. Facebook or Twitter) into the definition of "publicly available information." HOW IS IT ENFORCED? Generally, the law would be enforced by the FTC, under the provisions regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices, similar to other enforcement actions arising out of privacy policies. Notwithstanding, state attorney generals may also bring actions to enforce compliance and obtain damages, civil penalties, restitution, or other compensation on behalf of the residents of the state. WHAT SHOULD MY COMPANY DO? If your entity plans on collecting information for tracking COVID-19, measuring social distancing compliance, or contact tracing, it is advisable to include language in your privacy policy now. This could be as simple as adding an additional provision within your privacy policy stating that the entity will retain information to conduct one of the three COVID-19 purposes as laid out in the statute. In addition, this also means that should the entity collect and use employee information for contact tracing, tracking the spread of COVID-19 or ensuring compliance with social distancing measures, it will need to disclose some of the specifics of that process to the employees and have them opt-in for the process. Finally, for contact tracing purposes, any individual that shares their diagnosis will have to opt-in for the entity to legally collect, process, and transfer that information to others. While the time to reach compliance is unknown, it is more important than ever to form a compliance plan for privacy legislation if you do not already have a plan in place. If you decide to prepare with us, our firm has created a 90 day California Consumer Privacy Act compliance program (which can be expedited) where our team will collaborate with you to determine a scalable, practical, and reasonable way for you to meet your needs, and we will provide a free initial consultation. For further inquiries or questions related to COVID-19, you can consult with a Task Force attorney by emailing NDCovid19Response@ndlf.com or contacting our office directly at 949-854-7000. Kyle Janecek is an associate in the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice, and supports the team in advising clients on cyber related matters, including policies and procedures that can protect their day-to-day operations. For more information on how Kyle can help, contact him at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com. Jeff Dennis (CIPP/US) is the Head of the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice. Jeff works with the firm's clients on cyber-related issues, including contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. For more information on how Jeff can help, contact him at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Understanding the California Consumer Privacy Act

    March 02, 2020 —
    The recently enacted California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA” or the “Act”) goes into effect on January 1, 2020 and with it comes enhanced consumer protections for California residents against businesses that collect their personal information. Generally speaking, the CCPA requires that businesses provide consumers with information relating to the business’ access to and sharing of personal information. Accordingly, businesses should determine whether the CCPA will apply to them and, if so, what policies and procedures they should implement to comply with this new law. Application of the CCPA Importantly, the CCPA does not apply to all California business. The requirements of the CCPA only apply where a for-profit entity collects Consumers’ Personal Information, does business in the State of California, and satisfies one or more of the following: (1) has annual gross revenues in excess of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000); (2) receives for the business’s commercial purposes, sells, or shares for commercial purposes the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices; or (3) derives 50 percent or more of its annual revenues from selling consumers’ personal information. (California Code of Civil Procedure § 1798.140(c)(1)(A)-(C).) Thus, as a practical matter, small “mom and pop” operations will likely not be subject to the CCPA, but most mid-size and large companies should review their own books or consult with an accountant to determine whether the CCPA applies to their business. Rights Granted to Consumers “Consumers,” as the term is used in the CCPA, means “any natural person who is a California resident…” (California Code of Civil Procedure § 1798.140(g).) This broad definition makes no carve-outs or exclusions for a business’s employees and, despite the traditional definition of the term “consumer,” does not seem to require that the resident purchase any goods or services. This definition seems intentional and was likely designed to prevent businesses from attempting to circumvent the requirements of the CCPA by arguing that the personal information they collect does not belong to “consumers” under the traditional meaning of the word. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Bonsignore, Wilke Fleury
    Mr. Bonsignore may be contacted at kbonsignore@wilkefleury.com

    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 tpotter@coxcastle.com Mr. Campbell may be contacted at rcampbell@coxcastle.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Be Careful with Good Faith Payments

    February 24, 2020 —
    Sometimes doing the expedient thing and what looks good at the time can come back to bite you. Just ask 3M Company. In Faneuil, Inc. v. 3M Co., the Virginia Supreme Court considered a customer services subcontract between Faneuil and 3M relating to a toll collection contract 3M entered into with ERC. The subcontract had a “pay if paid” clause in it requiring payment to 3M from ERC before ERC was required to pay Faneuil, a written change order provision and a base monthly payment to Faneuil for the services that could be reduced in the event of less than expected toll collections. Further, the subcontract stated that if either party settled 3rd party claims, that settlement would not bind the other party to the subcontract absent consent or Court order. Faneuil was then alleged to have been required to provide “Special Services” relating to manual identification of license plates and other information necessary for toll billing due to 3M’s alleged failure to provide adequate imaging services. Faneuil requested (without written change order) and 3M promised to pay extra for these services. When 3M was slow to pay for the special services, Faneuil did what you would expect and threatened to stop providing them. Instead of contesting the right to the work, 3m made sporadic “good faith” payments to induce continued Special Services from Faneuil. Eventually 3M’s issues caused ERC to stop payments and thus 3M stopped paying Faneuil. 3M then settled the payment claims with ERC and still failed to pay Faneuil. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com