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

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

    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

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Isabel Kansas

    What You Need to Know About Additional Insured Endorsements

    Six Inducted into California Homebuilding Hall of Fame

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded "Because Of" Property Damage Are Covered by Policy

    White and Williams Defeats Policyholder’s Attempt to Invalidate Asbestos Exclusions

    Trump Order Waives Project Environment Rules to Push COVID-19 Recovery

    Insured's Expert Qualified, Judgment for Coverage Affirmed

    Three Reasons Late Payments Persist in the Construction Industry

    Home Builders Wear Many Hats

    No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations

    All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage

    Federal Public Works Construction Collection Remedies: The Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    The “Unavailability Exception” is Unavailable to Policyholders, According to New York Court of Appeals

    The Air in There: Offices, and Issues, That Seem to Make Us Stupid

    OSHA Begins Enforcement of its Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard. Try Saying That Five Times Real Fast

    Title II under ADA Applicable to Public Rights-of-Way, Parks and Other Recreation Areas

    In Colorado, Primary Insurers are Necessary Parties in Declaratory Judgment Actions

    Couple Claims Poor Installation of Home Caused Defects

    Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic

    John O’Meara is Selected as America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators

    Tennessee High Court Excludes Labor Costs from Insurer’s Actual Cash Value Depreciation Calculations

    Condo Association Settles with Pulte Homes over Construction Defect Claims

    How Mushrooms Can Be Used To Make Particle Board Less Toxic

    Los Angeles Construction Sites May Be on Fault Lines

    Duty to Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    Facebook Posts “Not Relevant” Rules Florida Appeals Court

    The New “White Collar” Exemption Regulations

    ICE Said to Seek Mortgage Role Through Talks With Data Service

    The Moving Finish Line: Statutes of Limitation and Repose Are Not Always What They Seem

    Commercial Development Nearly Quadruples in Jacksonville Area

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Legislative Update: Bid Protest Law Changes to Benefit Contractors

    Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure

    Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case Cannot Be Overturned While Facts Are Still in Contention in Related Cases

    Improper Classification Under Davis Bacon Can Be Costly

    Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Little Changed in January

    #10 CDJ Topic: Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company

    Coverage Found For Cleanup of Superfund Site Despite Pollution Exclusion

    Housing Affordability Down

    5 Impressive Construction Projects in North Carolina

    Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

    Spreading Cracks On FIU Bridge Failed to Alarm Project Team

    Neither Designated Work Exclusion nor Pre-Existing Damage Exclusion Defeat Duty to Defend

    Repair of Part May Necessitate Replacement of Whole

    How to Survive the Insurance Claim Process Before It Starts –Five Tips to Keep Your Insurance Healthy

    Colorado Senate Voted to Kill One of Three Construction Defect Bills

    Legal Matters Escalate in Aspen Condo Case

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    Bill Taylor Co-Authors Chapter in Pennsylvania Construction Law Book

    Rihanna Gained an Edge in Construction Defect Case

    Denver Council Committee Approves Construction Defects Ordinance
    Corporate Profile


    Through more than 4500 building and claims related expert witness designations, the Isabel, Kansas Construction Expert Directory delivers a wide range of trial support and consulting services to attorneys and construction practice groups concerned with construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides general construction investigation, trial and claims support services to the construction industry's most recognized companies, legal professionals, Fortune 500 builders, CGL carriers, owners, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies. Utilizing in house resources which comprise construction cost and scheduling experts, registered design professionals, forensic engineers, certified professional estimators, the firm brings regional experience and local capabilities to Isabel and the surrounding areas.

    Isabel Kansas construction claims expert witnessIsabel Kansas construction project management expert witnessIsabel Kansas engineering consultantIsabel Kansas building consultant expertIsabel Kansas consulting general contractorIsabel Kansas concrete expert witnessIsabel Kansas hospital construction expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Isabel, Kansas

    California Mechanics’ Lien Case Treads Both Old and New Ground

    July 27, 2020 —
    People do the darnedest things. The next case, Carmel Development Company v. Anderson, Case No. H041005, 6th District Court of Appeals (April 30, 2020), involving a 10-plus year oral design and construction contract, inconsistent accounting practices, two mechanics liens, and side-agreements, takes us down some well traveled paths but also covers some new ground. Carmel Development Company v. Anderson Carmel Development Company, Inc. provided design and construction services at a luxury subdivision known as Monterra Ranch located in Monterey under an oral contract with developer Monterra LLC which spanned over more than a decade. Between 1996 and 2008, Carmel was involved in the infrastructure design and construction of the subdivision including lot design and layout, the location of building envelopes on each lot, water and sewage system layout and design, and roadway design, construction and repair. When roughly half of the lots were developed and sold Monterra ran out of money and Carmel sued. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Re-Entering the Workplace: California's Guideline for Employers

    May 18, 2020 —
    When the California stay at home orders ultimately expire and Californians start to slowly transition back into the workplace, it will be critical for employers to have protocols in place which can best ensure the safety of their employees and that can continue to protect the public-at-large from the on-going spread of COVID-19. Recognizing the importance of this endeavor, the Governor's office last week released the COVID-19 Industry Guidance for Office Workspaces and Cal/OSHA General Checklist in order to provide guidance to businesses wanting to support a safe, clean environment for their employees. While the guidance is quick to point out that it is not intended to revoke or repeal any additional rights an employee may have to be protected in the workplace, and that it is not to be considered exhaustive of the steps employers need to take in order to protect their employees, the guidance does provide a useful roadmap for businesses to consider when establishing a robust plan that will best serve to protect employees from the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace. Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at or visit us at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Schneider, Newmeyer Dillion
    Mr. Schneider may be contacted at

    M&A Representation and Warranty Insurance Considerations in the Wake of the Coronavirus Pandemic

    April 06, 2020 —
    Increasingly, M&A transactions are using representation and warranty insurance (RWI) to bridge the gap between a buyer’s desire for adequate recourse to recover damages arising out of breach of representations in the purchase agreement and a seller’s desire to minimize post-closing risk and holdbacks or purchase price escrows traditionally used as the means to satisfy such obligations. When it works, RWI provides a significant benefit to both parties: it mitigates the buyer’s risk in the event that the seller’s representations and warranties prove untrue, and it permits the seller to reduce the portion of the purchase price that it would otherwise have to leave in escrow to cover future claims for breach of those representations and warranties. However, as the coronavirus pandemic ravages the global economy, insurers are now expressly adding COVID-19 exclusions to their RWI policies. If RWI insurers decline coverage for these losses, the allocation of risk in the representations and warranties (and related indemnity provisions) will be more critical than the parties contemplated when they negotiated the transaction documents. Unlike in the case of a natural disaster, insurers cannot quantify the economic fallout that may result from the coronavirus pandemic. This uncertainty breeds systemic concern about the number of insurance claims that covered parties of all varieties will bring, which in turn creates an industry-wide reluctance to cover the claims. Based on discussions with market participants, we understand that, at the present time, 70% to 80% of RWI insurers are broadly excluding losses resulting from COVID-19 and similar viruses, epidemics, and pandemics (including government actions in response thereto), 5% to 10% are narrowly excluding specific coronavirus-related losses that are more likely to be implicated in a particular transaction (e.g., losses caused by business interruption), and 10% to 15% may be willing to narrow their exclusions upon completion of the underwriting process, depending on their comfort level after conducting rigorous and heightened diligence. Insurers’ concerns are wide-ranging, but the representations and warranties causing the greatest distress appear to be those regarding customer retention, supply chain matters, undisclosed liabilities, and the absence of changes between the date of the seller’s most recent financial statements and the transaction closing date. Reprinted courtesy of Lori Smith, White and Williams and Patrick Devine, White and Williams Ms. Smith may be contacted at Mr. Devine may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Beginning of the 2020 Colorado Legislative Session: Here We Go Again

    February 10, 2020 —
    The 2020 Colorado legislative session started on Wednesday, January 8th. It seems like there will be plenty of issues this year to which home builders will want to pay close attention. On January 13th, Senators Fenberg, Foote, and Jackson sponsored SB 20-093, known as the “Consumer and Employee Dispute Resolution Fairness Act.”
      For certain consumer and employment arbitrations, the act:
    • Prohibits the waiver of standards for and challenges for evident partiality prior to a claim being filed and requires any waiver of such provisions after the claim is filed to be in writing;
    • Provides that the right of a party to challenge an arbitrator based on evident partiality is waived if not raised within a reasonable time of learning of the information leading to the challenge but that such right is not waived if caused by the opposing party;
    • Establishes ethical standards for arbitrators; and
    • Requires specified public disclosures by arbitration services providers but includes protections for certain confidential information.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at

    Most Common OSHA Violations Highlight Ongoing Risks

    July 27, 2020 —
    In the 12 months from October 2018 through September 2019, the most recent period reported by OSHA,[1] the workplace safety agency cited the following standards[2] more than any other in the 28 states which do not have OSHA-approved state plans, including Colorado:
    1. 1926.501 – Duty to have fall protection – included in 459 citations, resulting in $2,475,596 in penalties ($5,393/citation);
    2. 1926.451 – General requirements for scaffolds – included in 265 citations, resulting in $834,324 in penalties ($3,148/citation);
    3. 1926.1053 – Requirements for ladders including job-made ladders – included in 164 citations, resulting in $354,853 in penalties ($2,163/citation);
    4. 1926.503 – Training requirements related to fall protection - included in 114 citations, resulting in $156,076 in penalties ($1,369/citation);
    5. 1926.405 - Wiring methods, components, and equipment for general use – included in 93 citations, resulting in $150,821 in penalties ($1,621/citation);
    6. 1926.20 - General safety and health provisions – included in 85 citations, resulting in $328,491 in penalties ($3,864/citation);
    7. 1926.1052 – Requirements for stairways – included in 79 citations, resulting in $155,651 in penalties ($1,970/citation);
    8. 1926.102 – Requirements for eye and face protection - included in 67 citations, resulting in $165,595 in penalties ($2,471/citation);
    9. 1926.403 – General requirements for electrical conductors and equipment – included in 63 citations, resulting in $146,050 in penalties ($2,318/citation), and;
    10. 1926.100 – Requirements for head protection – included in 55 citations, resulting in $127,274 in penalties ($2,314/citation).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at

    A Few Things You Might Consider Doing Instead of Binging on Netflix

    April 13, 2020 —
    Governments throughout the world have issued “shelter in place” orders requiring that residents stay at home except for “essential” purposes. As a result, in the United States, more than a third of Americans have been ordered to stay at home. This, in turn, has had a direct impact on construction projects which have slowed or have been temporarily shuttered altogether, and it will (not may) have an impact on the flow of project funds. So what can project owners and contractors do? We’ve got a few tips. 1. Read Your Contract, Paying Particular Attention to Force Majeure, No Damages for Delay and Notice Provisions For the most part, with the exception of statutory rights and remedies which we will discuss below, your contract spells out your rights and remedies should the proverbial “S” hit the fan. It is, in other words, the rules you agreed to, and you should know what those rules provide. Three provisions you should look for, and if they’re in your contract, you should review carefully are: (1) Force majeure provisions; (2) No damages for delay provisions; and (3) notice provisions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Contractor Entitled to Defense for Alleged Faulty Workmanship of Subcontractor

    February 10, 2020 —
    Applying Nevada law, the Federal District Court in Florida found that the general contractor was entitled to a defense of claims based upon alleged faulty workmanship of a subcontractor. KB Home Jacksonville LLC v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151235 (M.D. Fla. Sept 5, 2019). KB Home completed six residential developments utilizing various subcontractors. One subcontractor was Florida State Plastering, LLC (FSP) for installing stucco. Eighty-eight complaints against KB Home implicated FSP's stucco work. Plaintiffs alleged that the stucco subcontractor's work suffered from construction defects, causing damages not only to the exterior stucco, but also the underling wire lath, paper backing, house wrap, wood sheathing, interior walls, interior floors and other property. Ironshore insured FSP under a CGL policy. KB Home was an additional insured for liability for property damage caused by "your work." KB Home was also insured under its own CGL policy with Liberty Mutual. Both insurers refused to defend. 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

    Don’t Conspire to Build a Home…Wait…What?

    June 08, 2020 —
    In 1986, the Colorado General Assembly enacted the Pro Rata Liability Act, codified at C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5, which eliminated joint and several liability for defendants in favor of pro rata liability.[1] The statute was “designed to avoid holding defendants liable for an amount of compensatory damages reflecting more than their respective degrees of fault.”[2] However, the following year, the Colorado legislature carved out an exception to preserve joint liability for persons “who consciously conspire and deliberately pursue a common plan or design to commit a tortious act.”[3] Because of this conspiracy exception, plaintiffs try to circumvent the general rule against joint and several liability by arguing that construction professionals defending construction defect cases were acting in concert, as co-conspirators. Plaintiffs argue that if they can prove that two or more construction professionals consciously conspired and deliberately pursued a common plan or design, i.e., to build a home or residential community, and such a plan results in the commission of a tort, i.e., negligence, the defendants may be held jointly and severally liable for all of the damages awarded. Since 1986, Colorado courts have construed the “conspiracy” provision in § 13-21-111.5(4), but some have disagreed as to what constitutes a conspiracy for purposes of imposing joint liability. Civil Conspiracy In Colorado, the elements of civil conspiracy are that: “(1) two or more persons; (2) come to a meeting of the minds; (3) on an object to be accomplished or a course of action to be followed; (4) and one or more overt unlawful acts are performed; (5) with damages as the proximate result thereof.”[4] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Benjamin Volpe, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Volpe may be contacted at