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

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

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    McPherson Area Contractors Association
    Local # 1735
    PO Box 38
    McPherson, KS 67460

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

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

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

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

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

    Flint Hills Area Builders Association
    Local # 1726
    2601 Anderson Ave Ste 207
    Manhattan, KS 66502

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Hoisington Kansas

    Benefits to Insureds Under Property Insurance Policy – Concurrent Cause Doctrine

    Designers Face Fatal Pedestrian Bridge Collapse Fallout

    Failing to Pay Prevailing Wages May Have Just Cost You More Than You Thought

    Inside New York’s Newest Architectural Masterpiece for the Mega-Rich

    Quick Note: Submitting Civil Remedy Notice

    Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses

    6,500 Bridges in Ohio Allegedly Functionally Obsolete or Structurally Deficient

    When Coronavirus Cases Spike at Construction Jobsites

    Taylor Morrison Home Corp’ New San Jose Development

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: The Colorado Court of Appeals’ Decision Protecting a Declarant’s Right to Arbitration in Construction Defect Cases

    DoD Will Require New Cybersecurity Standards in 2020: Could Other Agencies Be Next?

    Gilbane Project Exec Completes His Mission Against the Odds

    Florida Supreme Court: Notice of Right to Repair is a CGL “Suit,” SDV Amicus Brief Supports Decision

    Change #7- Contractor’s Means & Methods (law note)

    The "Dark Overlord" Strikes The Practice Of Law: What Law Firms Can Do To Protect Themselves

    What Do I Do With This Stuff? Dealing With Abandoned Property After Foreclosure

    Toll Plans to Boost New York Sales With Pricing, Incentives

    Housing Starts in U.S. Drop to Lowest Level in Three Months

    Indemnitor Owes Indemnity Even Where Indemnitee is Actively Negligent, California Court Holds

    Florida Federal Court Reinforces Principle That Precise Policy Language Is Required Before An Insurer Can Deny Coverage Based On An Exclusion

    Checking the Status of your Contractor License During Contract Work is a Necessity: The Expanded “Substantial Compliance” under B&P 7031 is Here

    South Carolina Couple Must Arbitrate Construction Defect Claim

    San Francisco Airport’s Terminal 1 Aims Sky High

    Insurer Must Produce Documents After Failing To Show They Are Confidential

    Caterpillar Forecast Tops Estimates as Construction Recovers

    Are “Green” Building Designations and Certifications Truly Necessary?

    Insurance for Large Construction Equipment Such as a Crane

    Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back

    Harlem Developers Reach Deal with Attorney General

    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

    CISA Guidance 3.1: Not Much Change for Construction

    Contractor Sues License Board

    NY Appeals Court Ruled Builders not Responsible in Terrorism Cases

    Subcontractor Allowed to Sue Designer for Negligence: California Courts Chip Away at the Economic Loss Doctrine (Independent Duty Rule)

    Demonstrating A Fraudulent Inducement Claim Or Defense

    Allen, TX Board of Trustees Expected to Approve Stadium Repair Plans

    Consequential Damages From Subcontractor's Faulty Work Constitutes "Property Damage" and An "Occurrence"

    Insurer Not Bound by Decision in Underlying Case Where No Collateral Estoppel

    Haight’s John Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2020 Southern California Rising Stars

    Less Than Perfectly Drafted Endorsement Bars Flood Coverage

    Virginia Chinese Drywall and pollution exclusion

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    Duty to Defend Bodily Injury Evolving Over Many Policy Periods Prorated in Louisiana

    Bay Area Firm Offers Construction Consulting to Remodels

    Colorado Court of Appeals to Rule on Arbitrability of an HOA's Construction Defect Claims

    COVID-19 Response: Environmental Compliance Worries in the Time of Coronavirus

    Why Clinton and Trump’s Infrastructure Plans Leave Us Wanting More

    Coloradoans Deserve More Than Hyperbole and Rhetoric from Plaintiffs’ Attorneys; We Deserve Attainable Housing

    Construction Law Firm Opens in D.C.

    Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Enacted
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from approximately five thousand construction claims related expert witness designations, the Hoisington, Kansas Construction Expert Directory delivers a streamlined multi-disciplinary expert retention and support solution to legal professionals and construction practice groups seeking effective resolution of construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides building related trial support and expert consulting services to the construction industry's leading builders and developers, legal professionals, and owners, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies. In connection with in house personnel which comprise building envelope experts, forensic architects, professional engineers, credentialed construction standard of care consultants, the firm brings national experience and local capabilities to Hoisington region.

    Hoisington Kansas civil engineering expert witnessHoisington Kansas construction safety expertHoisington Kansas architect expert witnessHoisington Kansas soil failure expert witnessHoisington Kansas expert witnesses fenestrationHoisington Kansas expert witness commercial buildingsHoisington Kansas fenestration expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Hoisington, Kansas

    EEOC Suit Alleges Site Managers Bullied Black Workers on NY Project

    June 15, 2020 —
    Bullying, threats and racial slurs detail alleged “hostile” working conditions for black employees at a now complete cement plant modernization project near Albany, N.Y., in a lawsuit filed June 2 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against CCC Group Inc., a San Antonio, Texas-based general contractor. Emell D. Adolphus, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Proposed California Legislation Would Eliminate Certain Obstacles to Coverage for Covid-19 Business Income Losses

    July 20, 2020 —
    On July 2, 2020, the California Legislature amended California Assembly Bill 1552 to help policyholders seeking business interruption coverage for their COVID-19 losses. The draft legislation states the need for the legislation to go into immediate effect in "order to protect the solvency of businesses that were forced to close their doors or limit business" due to the pandemic. If adopted, the proposed legislation would apply to all commercial insurance policies providing coverage for business interruption in effect on and after March 4, 2020. The proposed legislation would create rebuttable presumptions in favor of coverage for losses due to COVID-19 under Business Income, Extra Expense, Civil Authority and Ingress and Egress policy provisions. For instance, the proposed legislation would create presumptions that COVID-19 was present at the insured premises and caused damage to the insured property. The draft legislation also specifies that the virus shall not be considered a pollutant unless the policy specifies otherwise. The ultimate impact of the draft legislation is unclear however, given that it specifically "does not affect the applicability of any policy provision, including any language addressing loss or damage caused by a virus." For additional information, you can consult with a Task Force attorney by emailing or contacting our office directly at 949-854-7000. About Newmeyer Dillion For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's success and bottom line. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit Reprinted courtesy of James S. Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion and Alan H. Packer, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Hultz may be contacted at Mr. Packer may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Blackouts Require a New Look at Backup Power

    April 06, 2020 —
    Recent blackouts on both East and West coasts are causing commercial property owners to reassess their need for backup power. The likelihood of more-frequent blackouts means backup power must evolve from ensuring the safe exit of office workers to enabling core business functions to continue uninterrupted. That’s a major shift in preparedness that construction executives should consider in future planning. In New York City on July 13, 2019, a Con Edison blackout left 72,000 customers in Manhattan and Queens without power primarily because of a flawed connection at an electrical substation. Eight days later, a second Con Edison blackout left more than 50,000 customers, mostly in Brooklyn, without power due to high usage during a heat wave. These events occurred even though, as Con Edison stated, the New York City grid is one of the most complex and technologically advanced in the world and contains multiple layers of redundancy. In northern and central California in late October, 2019, intentional blackouts were implemented by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) on a massive scale in response to out-of-control wildfires. “Never before in California history have more than 2 million people gone five days without electrical power because of the intentional safety policy of a utility,” reported the Los Angeles Times. It was the second massive blackout in California in two weeks, after PG&E had earlier shut off power to almost 2 million people in rolling blackouts. The blackouts on both coasts are remarkable not only for their breadth but for the range of causes—from limiting wildfires sparked in part by faulty, above-ground, power lines to a flawed connection at a substation to overuse during a heat wave. The conditions creating those causes are not likely to subside, and Con Edison warned this summer of more service outages to come. In California, The Washington Post writes, “blackouts are redefining the prosperous state.” Reprinted courtesy of John McBride, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    ABC, Via Construction Industry Safety Coalition, Comments on Silica Rule

    February 18, 2020 —
    The Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC) has responded to OSHA’s request for information regarding changes to the “Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica – Specified Exposure Control Methods Standard,” also known as the silica rule. Specifically, OSHA requested comments in mid-August on potential changes to Table 1, which designates compliance actions for a range of conditions and tasks exposing workers to respirable crystalline silica. CISC, comprised of 26 members including Associated Builders and Contractors, has formally requested that OSHA expand compliance options. “Expanding Table 1 and otherwise improving compliance with the rule is of paramount importance to member associations and contractors across the country,” CISC tells OSHA Principal Deputy Loren Sweatt. “Based upon feedback from contractors, both large and small, compliance with the rule remains challenging.” Reprinted courtesy of Rachel O'Connell, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

    June 29, 2020 —
    The court found there was no coverage for the insureds' alleged negligent failure to construct a building. Evanston Ins. Co. v. DCM Contracting, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63977 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 28, 2020). Turning Point Church sued DCM Contracting for faulty workmanship on a construction project. Turning Point sent a demand letter to DCM on August 18, 2017 and filed suit in December. Evanston did not receive notice of Turning Point's claims and the lawsuit until May 15, 2018. Evanston filed suit for a declaratory judgment and moved for summary judgment. The court first considered the late notice. The policy required notice "as soon as practicable" DCM was also required to provide copies of demands, notices, or legal papers to Evanston. Here, DCM did not give notice to Evanston until nine months after receipt of Turning Point's demand. A phone communication with DCM's agent between August 2017 and May 2018 was insufficient. DCM provided no documents, including the summons and complaint, to the agent. DCM waited five months to forward the underlying lawsuit. This was a breach of 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

    Coronavirus and Contract Obligations

    March 30, 2020 —
    The Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has caused a global disruption to businesses, causing many to temporarily close and lay off employees. As businesses assess the short– and long–term economic impact of COVID-19, they should also evaluate what contractual obligations and remedies are available under various agreements (e.g., leases, vendor agreements, and supply agreements). When performance may be delayed or may not occur altogether, businesses should consider their force majeure clauses, if any, and the doctrines of impossibility, impracticability, and frustration of purpose. Force Majeure Generally, unless a contract provides that performance will be suspended or relieved when certain events occur (e.g., “acts of God,” government regulation, acts of war or terror, strikes), each party is obligated to perform. However, when there is an express force majeure provision, certain events or acts may excuse non-performance or delayed performance. But depending on the jurisdiction, courts may construe force majeure provisions narrowly and excuse performance only for those events expressly listed in the clause. Nonetheless, if the force majeure provision includes pandemic, epidemic, quarantine, government act, disease, or similar terms, then the COVID-19 pandemic may excuse performance or allow delayed performance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at

    AB5 Construction Exemption – A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5’s Three-Part Test

    February 18, 2020 —
    Construction companies have a unique opportunity to avoid the application of the restrictive new independent contractors law that took effect this year. This article provides a checklist that will help construction companies determine whether their relationships with subcontractors qualify for this exemption. California’s Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), which went into effect Jan. 1, 2020, enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. Certain professions and industries are potentially exempt from this standard, including the construction industry. The ABC test does not apply to the relationship between a contractor and an individual performing work pursuant to a subcontractor in the construction industry, if certain criteria are met. In order for the “construction exemption” to apply, the contractor must demonstrate that all of the following criteria are satisfied.
    1. The subcontract is in writing;
    2. The subcontractor is licensed by the Contractors State License Board and the work is within the scope of that license;
    3. If the subcontractor is domiciled in a jurisdiction that requires the subcontractor to have a business license or business tax registration, the subcontractor has the required business license or business tax registration;
    4. The subcontractor maintains a business location that is separate from the business or work location of the contractor;
    5. The subcontractor has the authority to hire and to fire other persons to provide or assist in providing the services;
    6. The subcontractor assumes financial responsibility for errors or omissions in labor or services as evidenced by insurance, legally authorized indemnity obligations, performance bonds, or warranties relating to the labor or services being provided; and
    7. The subcontractor is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
    The contractor must be able to establish each of the above criteria for the construction exemption to apply. If the contractor is successful, the long standing multi-factor test for determining independent contractor vs. employee status as described in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989) will apply. You should review your processes and procedures for engaging subcontractors to ensure that you can satisfy the above criteria. If you have questions about the application of AB5, the construction exemption, or the Borello factors, you should speak with an attorney. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears
    Mr. Dillion may be contacted at

    Leveraging the 50-State Initiative, Connecticut and Maine Team Secure Full Dismissal of Coverage Claim for Catastrophic Property Loss

    March 23, 2020 —
    On behalf of Gordon & Rees’ surplus lines insurer client, Hartford insurance coverage attorneys Dennis Brown, Joseph Blyskal, and Regen O’Malley, with the assistance of associates Kelcie Reid, Alexandria McFarlane, and Justyn Stokely, and Maine counsel Lauren Thomas, secured a full dismissal of a $15 million commercial property loss claim before the Maine Business and Consumer Court on January 23, 2020. The insured, a wood pellet manufacturer, sustained catastrophic fire loss to its plant in 2018 – just one day after its surplus lines policy expired. Following the insurer’s declination of coverage for the loss, the wood pellet manufacturer brought suit against both its agent, claiming it had failed to timely secure property coverage, as well as the insurer, alleging that it had had failed to comply with Maine’s statutory notice requirements. The surplus lines insurer agreed to extend the prior policy several times by endorsement, but declined to do so again. Notably, the insured alleged that the agent received written notice of the non-renewal prior to the policy’s expiration 13 days before the policy’s expiration. However, the insured (as well as the agent by way of a cross-claim) asserted that the policy remained effective at the time of the loss as the insured did not receive direct notice of the decision not to renew coverage and notice to the agent was not timely. Although Maine’s Attorney General and Superintendent intervened in support of the insured’s and agent’s argument that the statute’s notice provision applied such that coverage would still be owed under the expired policy, Gordon & Rees convinced the Court otherwise. At issue, specifically, was whether the alleged violation of the 14-day notice provision in Section 2009-A of the Surplus Lines Law (24-A M.R.S. § 2009-A), which governs the “cancellation and nonrenewal” of surplus lines policies, required coverage notwithstanding the expiration of the policy. The insured, the agent, and the State of Maine intervenors argued that “cancellation or nonrenewal” was sufficient to trigger the statute’s notice requirement, and thus Section 2009-A required the insurer to notify the insured directly of nonrenewal. In its motion to dismiss, Gordon & Rees argued on behalf of its client that Section 2009-A requires both “cancellation and nonrenewal” in order for the statute to apply. Since there was no cancellation in this case – only nonrenewal – Gordon & Rees argued that Section 2009-A is inapt and that the insurer is not obligated to provide the manufacturer with notice of nonrenewal. Alternatively, it argued that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Regen O'Malley, Gordon & Rees
    Ms. O'Malley may be contacted at