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

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

    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

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

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For La Crosse Kansas

    Iowa Apartment Complex Owners Awarded Millions for Building Defects

    No Coverage for Defects in Subcontrator's Own Work

    Lien Law Unlikely To Change — Yet

    Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Holds that Nearly All Project Labor Agreements are Illegal

    Everyone Wins When a Foreclosure Sale Generates Excess Proceeds

    Home Building on the Upswing in Bakersfield

    Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision

    Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

    Housing Starts in U.S. Slumped More Than Forecast in March

    Client Alert: Restaurant Owed Duty of Care to Driver Killed by Third-Party on Street Adjacent to Restaurant Parking Lot

    GAO Sustains Unsupported Past Performance Evaluation and Unequal Discussion Bid Protest

    Sick Leave, Paid Time Off, and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

    7 Sustainability Ideas for Modular Classrooms in the Education Industry (guest post)

    Daiwa House to Invest 150 Billion Yen in U.S. Rental Housing

    Contractor May Be Barred Until Construction Lawsuit Settled

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition of Seattle’s 25-story McGuire Apartments Building

    Couple Claims Contractor’s Work Is Defective and Incomplete

    Court Agrees to Stay Coverage Matter While Underlying State Action is Pending

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- An Alternative

    Legal Matters Escalate in Aspen Condo Case

    Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

    NYC Design Firm Executives Plead Guilty in Pay-to-Play Scheme

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

    Taylor Morrison Home Corp’ New San Jose Development

    Why a Challenge to Philadelphia’s Project Labor Agreement Would Be Successful

    Toward Increased Citizen Engagement in Urban Planning

    Selected Environmental Actions Posted on the Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulator Actions

    Contractor Allegedly Injured after Slipping on Black Ice Files Suit

    Unpaid Hurricane Maria Insurance Claims, New Laws in Puerto Rico, and the Lesson for all Policyholders

    Construction Leads World Trade Center Area Vulnerable to Flooding

    Couple Sues for Construction Defects in Manufactured Home

    Construction Safety Technologies – Videos

    Philadelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program

    LAX Runway Lawsuit a Year Too Late?

    Paris ‘Locks of Love’ Overload Bridges, Threatening Structures

    Equities Favor Subrogating Insurer Over Subcontractor That Performed Defective Work

    Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

    Construction Contract Provisions that Should Pique Your Interest

    NLRB Broadens the Joint Employer Standard

    Anatomy of an Indemnity Provision

    Alabama Appeals Court Rules Unexpected and Unintended Property Damage is an Occurrence

    Housing-Related Spending Makes Up Significant Portion of GDP

    Texas “Loser Pays” Law May Benefit Construction Insurers

    CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 12 CD Topics of 2015

    Cooperation and Collaboration With Government May Be on the Horizon

    Contractors Board May Discipline Over Workers’ Comp Reporting

    Reporting Requirements for Architects under California Business and Professions Code Section 5588

    Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?

    Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims
    Corporate Profile


    Drawing from more than 4500 building and construction related expert designations, the La Crosse, Kansas Construction Expert Directory delivers a wide range of trial support and consulting services to lawyers and construction practice groups seeking effective resolution of construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides building claims and trial support services to the nation's leading construction practice groups, Fortune 500 builders, real estate investment trusts, risk managers, owners, as well as a variety of municipalities and government offices. In connection with regional assets which comprise licensed architects, civil engineers, building envelope experts, general and specialty contractors focused on the evaluation of construction claims, the firm brings specialized expertise and local capabilities to the La Crosse region.

    La Crosse Kansas slope failure expert witnessLa Crosse Kansas architectural expert witnessLa Crosse Kansas engineering expert witnessLa Crosse Kansas construction forensic expert witnessLa Crosse Kansas soil failure expert witnessLa Crosse Kansas construction expertsLa Crosse Kansas reconstruction expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    La Crosse, Kansas

    LEEDigation: A Different Take

    June 22, 2020 —
    This weeks Guest Post Friday at Musings is a real treat. Sara Sweeney is a registered architect, LEED AP and GreenFaith Fellow in religious environmental leadership. Her 18-year architectural career reflects her passion and commitment to sustainable building design and stewardship of our natural environment. She is the founder of EcoVision LLC, a solutions-based research and consulting firm, grounded in sustainable design practices, environmental stewardship, and building science. Dude Every so often I come across a word that drives me nuts. A few years ago it was ‘Dude.’ Lately, it is ‘LEEDigation.’ It’s a new term to “describe green building litigation” coined by Chris Cheatham, a fine person and very knowledgeable attorney in construction law and a LEED AP as well. Per his definition, LEEDigation “could involve disputes arising from green building certification, could arise if a project fails to obtain government incentives or satisfy mandates for green building construction, or could simply result from improperly designed or constructed green building strategies. It all makes sense. So why does it drive me nuts? Round Peg. Square Hole. Although I fully understand why the term was coined, such a term keeps us in flat world, that is, the world of conventional design and construction. Designing and building to LEED standards, or rather, just designing and building sustainably in general, whether to meet a third party standard or not, is a different way than what we have been used to. Period. Whereas our conventional way is focused on first costs, and sees the building more as a commodity than the human imprint and legacy on Earth, sustainable design and building is a process which, at its best, considers the economic impacts of NOT building responsibly. It is a more holistic way of building and balances long-term costs and implications with short term costs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Eyerly 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

    ALERT: COVID-19 / Coronavirus-Related Ransomware and Phishing Attacks

    April 13, 2020 —
    As with other events that attract societal attention – whether it be an international sporting event like the Olympics or a natural disaster like the Australian bush fires - criminals often utilize the events to exploit consumers’ fears and, in turn, compromise the cybersecurity of businesses nationwide. With the advent of the Coronavirus, criminals have begun to take advantage of what consumers expect to receive via email to conduct phishing attacks. Criminals are also expected to take advantage of millions of vulnerable remote connections from employee home networks to their corporate networks. According to Proofpoint Inc., a cybersecurity firm, the use of sophisticated Coronavirus-related “phishing” strategies has been on the rise since January, with new malicious email campaigns surfacing each day. These emails, which appear to come from legitimate organizations, contain content such as advice on combatting the Coronavirus, phony invoices for purchases of face masks and medical supplies, advertisements for products that allegedly treat the illness, and phony alerts from the World Health Organization (WHO) or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). When the email recipients open these messages, they unknowingly release malware, which allows the attacker to gain access to their personal information and to compromise the security of their employers’ networks. The recent emergence of Coronavirus-related “phishing” schemes demonstrates that businesses must remain vigilant. Employees and their employers are particularly vulnerable now, in light of the novel nature of the Coronavirus, the paucity of information concerning the illness, and the rapid and significant manner in which it is spreading. Individuals are thirsty for information and advice, and are eager to take any action necessary to protect themselves and their families. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher E. Ballod, Lewis Brisbois and Sean B. Hoar, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Ballod may be contacted at Mr. Hoar may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    COVID-19 Damages and Time Recovery: Contract Checklist and Analysis

    April 27, 2020 —
    This Alert explores the contract provisions and related rights that are likely to govern time and compensation adjustments for COVID-19 impacts. As parties begin analyzing such rights, this is intended to serve as a useful guide and checklist. Analysis of relevant contract provisions should start with careful consideration of the specific impacts that have been experienced and the causes of those impacts. The nature of the impact (delay, extra work, disruption, etc.) and the causes of such impacts (owner direction, government order, etc.) will generally govern the analysis and resulting course of action. Listing or creating a matrix of impacts and their causes may be an effective working tool. Essentially, there are five primary impacts that will likely require critical analysis under the relevant contract provisions, and notably, more than one impact may be present: a) complete or partial suspension of work, b) additional work or requirements, c) added cost, d) delay, and e) disruption. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick J. Greene, Jr., Peckar & Abramson
    Mr. Greene may be contacted at

    Largest US Dam Removal Stirs Debate Over Coveted West Water

    May 11, 2020 —
    KLAMATH, Calif. (AP) — The second-largest river in California has sustained Native American tribes with plentiful salmon for millennia, provided upstream farmers with irrigation water for generations and served as a haven for retirees who built dream homes along its banks. With so many competing demands, the Klamath River has come to symbolize a larger struggle over the increasingly precious water resources of the U.S. West, and who has the biggest claim to them. Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Supreme Court Adopts Vertical Exhaustion for Long-Tail Claims

    June 15, 2020 —
    In another round of litigation involving coverage issues between Montrose Chemical Corporation and its insurers, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Montrose, adopting vertical exhaustion of excess policies. Montrose Chem. Corp. of Calif. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 9 Ca. 5th 215 (2020). In 1990, the United States and the State of California sued Montrose for contamination from 1947 to 1982 caused by Montrose's facility manufacturing insecticides. Montrose had primary and excess liability policies from defendant insurers between 1961 and 1985. Forty insurers collectively issued more than 115 excess policies, which collectively provided coverage sufficient to indemnify Montrose's anticipate total liability. Primary coverage was exhausted. Each excess policy provided that Montrose had to exhaust the limits of its underlying coverage before there would be excess coverage. Which excess carrier could be called on first was the issued before the California Supreme Court. Montrose proposed a rule of "vertical exhaustion" or "elective stacking," whereby it could access any excess policy once it exhausted other policies with lower attachment points in the same policy period. The insurers, in contract, argued for "horizontal exhaustion," whereby Montrose could access an excess policy only after it exhausted other policies with lower attachment points from every policy period in which the environmental damage resulting in liability occurred. 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

    Navigate the New Health and Safety Norm With Construction Technology

    August 03, 2020 —
    Safety has always been a pressing issue in construction, and as states reopen and construction projects pick up steam once again, the industry will become even more closely scrutinized than before. Construction safety looks a lot different than it did six months ago. In addition to the concerns around keeping workers safe on construction sites, today’s contractors are faced with a whole new category of risk, and with new health and safety measures that may vary by county, state or region. New requirements range from social distancing and limits on the size of crews, to requiring masks and temperature checks for all workers. OPERATING IN THE NEW NORM This sudden onset of COVID-19 put otherwise healthy businesses into a state of chaos that, months later, is still hard to navigate. By March of 2020, reports indicated that nearly one-third of construction projects had come to a halt. Now, as the industry emerges, balancing business continuity efforts with trying to get crews back to work and jobsites moving again will no doubt present challenges. New health and safety measures, plus the fact that no one wants to touch paper in the field, will add another layer of administrative and procedural oversight to the construction process. Of course, these measures are absolutely needed, but construction businesses can’t ignore the fact that it changes the very way projects and jobsites are managed. And, without the right tools in place, it may be a bumpy ride. Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy Larsen, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Larsen may be contacted at

    How AB5 has Changed the Employment Landscape

    March 16, 2020 —
    As a result of California's Assembly Bill 5, effective January 1, 2020, the California Supreme Court's ABC test is now the standard for evaluating independent contractor classifications for purposes of the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, California Labor Code, and the California Unemployment Insurance Code. That dramatically ups the ante for companies that rely on independent contractors, particularly those that have not re-evaluated such classifications under the ABC test. Misclassification cases can be devastating, especially for misclassified non-exempt employees, and can result in minimum wage violations, missed meal and rest periods, unpaid overtime, unreimbursed business expenses, record-keeping violations, steep penalties, attorneys' fees, and even criminal liability, among other consequences. Misclassifying workers creates enormous risks for companies and is fertile ground for class actions and representative actions under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The Costs Of Misclassification Are Expensive, And Hope Is Not A Strategy Many business owners I speak to understand AB5 has caused the ground to shift beneath their feet and recognize the resulting risks of misclassifying workers. Despite these risks, companies often balk at taking the necessary steps to evaluate their classifications and mitigate the risk of an adverse classification finding. The most common reason I hear from resistant companies is the worker does not want to be reclassified as an employee and the company trusts the worker ("I've worked with her for years; she won't sue me because she wants to be a contractor"). I get it. Making the change from contractor to employee results in less flexibility and greater administrative burden for everyone involved. While I'm sympathetic, the government is not. Reluctance to change while acknowledging the associated risks amounts to a strategy based on hope. As we say in the Marine Corps, however, "hope is not a strategy." Aside from the sometimes foolhardy belief that a misclassified worker can be trusted to not file suit after a business breakup (when the deposits stop and mortgage bill comes due, guess who's a prime target), companies often fail to recognize the numerous ways in which their classification decisions can be challenged even when they are in agreement with their (misclassified) contractors. Here are just three examples of how your classifications can be scrutinized despite the lack of a challenge by the worker:
    • Auto Accidents: Whether delivering products, making sales calls, or traveling between job sites, independent contractors often perform work that requires driving. Of course, sometimes drivers are involved in automobile accidents. When accidents happen, insurance companies step in and look for sources of money to fund claims, attorneys' fees, costs, and settlements. One potential source is your insurance. "But the driver isn't my employee!," you say. You better buckle up because the other motorist's insurance carrier is about to challenge your classification in an attempt to access your insurance policies.
    • EDD Audits: During the course of the last several years, the California Employment Development Department (EDD) has increased the number of verification (random) audits it performs in search of additional tax revenue. One reason government agencies prefer hiring entities classifying workers as employees rather than independent contractors is it's a more efficient tax collection method; employers collect employees' taxes on the government's behalf, which increases collection rates and reduces government collection costs. The consequences of misclassification include pricey fines, penalties, and interest.
    • Unemployment Insurance, Workers' Compensation, and Disability Claims: In addition to verification audits, the EDD performs request (targeted) audits. Targeted audits may result when a contractor files an unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, or disability claim because independent contractors are ineligible for such benefits. Request audits, like verification audits, can result in costly fines, penalties, and interest if the EDD concludes you have misclassified your workers. Even so, that may not be the worst of it: the EDD often shares its findings with the Internal Revenue Service.
    Your Action Plan AB5 has changed the measuring stick, misclassification costs are high, and you do not have complete control of when the government or others can challenge your classifications. So what can you do? Here are several steps all prudent companies should take if they are using independent contractors:
    • Conduct an audit of current classification practices;
    • Review written independent contractor agreements;
    • Implement written independent contractor agreements;
    • Update workplace policies;
    • Update organizational charts;
    • Reclassify independent contractors as employees if necessary.
    Jason Morris is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer Dillion. Jason's practice concentrates on the areas of labor and employment and business litigation. He advises employers and business owners in employment litigation, as well as advice and counsel related to employment policies and investigations. You can reach him at 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 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of