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

    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


    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 Mildred Kansas

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    Construction Up in United States

    Quick Note: Aim to Avoid a Stay to your Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    New England Construction Defect Law Groups to Combine

    Terminating the Notice of Commencement (with a Notice of Termination)

    U.S. Steel Invoking Carnegie’s Legacy in Revival Strategy

    Big League Dreams a Nightmare for Town

    London’s Best Districts Draw Buyers on Italian Triple Dip

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2020 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    Construction Defects Are Not An Occurrence Under New York, New Jersey Law

    Ex-Detroit Demolition Official Sentenced for Taking Bribes

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- An Alternative

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

    Two-Part Series on Condominium Construction Defect Issues

    Amos Rex – A Museum for the Digital Age

    Home Prices Beat Estimates With 0.8% Gain in November

    Flag on the Play! Expired Contractor’s License!

    Statutory Time Limits for Construction Defects in Massachusetts

    Insurance Company Must Show that Lead Came from Building Materials

    Record-Setting Construction in Fargo

    Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion on Business Risk Exclusions Fails

    Changes to Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code

    Take Advantage of AI and Data Intelligence in Construction

    Building with Recycled Plastics – Interview with Jeff Mintz of Envirolastech

    Things You Didn't Know About Your Homeowners Policy

    The Ever-Growing Thicket Of California Civil Code Section 2782

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

    Managing Infrastructure Projects with Infrakit – Interview with Teemu Kivimäki

    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Rules General Contractors Can Contractually Subordinate Mechanics Lien Rights

    How to Build Climate Change-Resilient Infrastructure

    Four Dead After Crane Collapses at Google’s Seattle Campus

    Arbitration—No Opportunity for Appeal

    Arizona Court Cites California Courts to Determine Construction Defect Coverage is Time Barred

    New Jersey Court Washes Away Insurer’s Waiver of Subrogation Arguments

    Stormy Skies Ahead? Important News Regarding a Hard Construction Insurance Market

    Building Permits Up in USA Is a Good Sign

    Lien Actions Versus Lien Foreclosure Actions

    Connecting IoT Data to BIM

    Undocumented Debris at Mississippi Port Sparks Legal Battle

    Insurer's Failure to Settle Does Not Justify Multiple Damages under Unfair Claims Settlement Law

    Las Vegas Harmon Hotel to be Demolished without Opening

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Appellate Court Reinforces When the Attorney-Client Relationship Ends for Purposes of “Continuous Representation” Tolling Provision of Legal Malpractice Statute of Limitations

    West Virginia Couple Claim Defects in Manufactured Home

    Saudi Arabia Awards Contracts for Megacity Neom’s Worker Housing

    Be Careful with Good Faith Payments

    Insurers' Motion to Knock Out Bad Faith, Negligent Misrepresentation Claims in Construction Defect Case Denied

    More Musings From the Mediation Trenches

    Supreme Court of California Rules That Trial Court Lacking Subject Matter Jurisdiction May Properly Grant Anti-SLAPP Motion on That Basis, and Award Attorney’s Fees

    Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit
    Corporate Profile

    MILDRED KANSAS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from approximately 5000 construction and design related expert designations, the Mildred, Kansas Construction Expert Directory provides a wide spectrum of trial support and consulting services to lawyers and construction practice groups seeking effective resolution of construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides construction related trial support and expert consulting services to the nation's leading construction practice groups, Fortune 500 builders, general liability carriers, owners, as well as a variety of public entities. Utilizing in house resources which comprise licensed general and specialty contractors, consulting civil engineers, NCARB certified architects, roofing, and building envelope experts, the organization brings national experience and local capabilities to Mildred and the surrounding areas.

    Mildred Kansas structural concrete expertMildred Kansas civil engineering expert witnessMildred Kansas expert witnesses fenestrationMildred Kansas building expertMildred Kansas construction code expert witnessMildred Kansas construction project management expert witnessMildred Kansas testifying construction expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Mildred, Kansas

    COVID-19 Response: Recent Executive Orders Present Opportunities for Businesses Seeking Regulatory and Enforcement Relief and Expedited Project Development

    June 15, 2020 —
    Washington, D.C. (June 8, 2020) - Two recent Executive Orders (EO) aimed at promoting economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis offer regulatory and enforcement relief and encourage agencies to expedite infrastructure project approvals. The May 19, 2020 EO 13924, “Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery,” directs agencies to determine whether previous regulatory reforms would promote economic recovery if made permanent and encourages compliance assistance through exercising enforcement discretion, including declining enforcement. And the June 4, 2020 EO 13927, “Accelerating the Nation’s Economic Recovery from the COVID-19 Emergency by Expediting Infrastructure Investments and Other Activities,” aims to speed up the permitting process for infrastructure projects to strengthen the national economy. As businesses look to move forward and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, they should closely review these EOs for opportunities to take advantage of streamlined treatment and faster project approvals. EO 13294 supplements the Administration’s efforts to address the economic crisis brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic by encouraging federal agencies to rescind, modify, waive, or provide exemptions from federal regulations that may inhibit economic recovery and to provide guidance to businesses, particularly small businesses, on what is required of them under federal law for reopening. Specifically, the EO directs agency heads to identify regulatory standards that may inhibit economic recovery and consider rescinding or waiving those regulations, exempting regulated entities from compliance, exercising enforcement discretion, or extending regulatory compliance and enforcement deadlines. It also allows for compliance assistance through accelerated regulatory procedures to receive a pre-enforcement ruling and directs agencies to assess previous regulatory reforms to determine whether making them permanent would promote economic recovery. Since taking office, the Trump Administration has made regulatory reform a cornerstone of its agenda. This Executive Order is a continuation of the aggressive steps taken by the Administration to reduce the regulatory burden faced by American businesses that many argue increases operating costs, inhibits job creation, and stifles economic growth. Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois attorneys Karen C. Bennett, Jane C. Luxton and Amanda L. Tharpe Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Tharpe may be contacted at Amanda.Tharpe@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado House Bill 20-1290 – Restriction on the Use of Failure to Cooperate Defense in First-Party Claims

    May 18, 2020 —
    On February 7th, Representative Garnett, with Senator Fenberg as the Senate sponsor, introduced HB 20-1290, concerning the ability of an insurer to use a failure-to-cooperate defense in an action in which the insured has made a claim for insurance coverage. If the bill were to pass, in order to plead or prove a failure-to-cooperate defense in any action concerning first-party insurance benefits, the following conditions must be met:
    1. The carrier has submitted a written request for information the carrier seeks to the insured or the insured’s representative, by certified mail;
    2. The written request provides the insured 60 days to respond;
    3. The information sought would be discoverable in litigation;
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    California Supreme Court Adopts “Vertical Exhaustion” in the Long-Storied Montrose Environmental Coverage Litigation

    June 08, 2020 —
    On April 6, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued a decision that held a policyholder is entitled to access available excess coverage under any excess policy once it has exhausted directly underlying excess policies for the same policy period in Montrose Chemical Corporation v. the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Supreme Court of California, case number S244737. In its unanimous decision adopting this “vertical exhaustion” requirement, the court rejected the “horizontal exhaustion” rule urged by the policyholder’s excess insurers, under which the policyholder would have been able to access an excess policy only after it had exhausted other policies with lower attachment points from every policy period in which the environmental damage resulting in liability occurred. In 1990, Montrose sought coverage under primary policies and multiple layers of excess policies issued for periods from 1961 through 1985 for environmental damage liabilities arising from its production of insecticide in the Los Angeles area between 1947 and 1982. The ongoing dispute currently arises out of Montrose’s Fifth Amended Complaint which was filed in 2015 seeking declarations concerning exhaustion and the manner in which Montrose may allocate its liabilities across the policies. Each of the excess policies at issue contained a requirement of exhaustion of underlying coverage. The various policies described the applicable underlying coverage in four main ways: (1) some policies contained a schedule of underlying insurance listing all of the underlying policies in the same policy period by insurer name, policy number, and dollar amount; (2) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and a schedule of underlying insurance on file with the insurer; (3) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and identified one or more of the underlying insurers; and (4) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance that corresponds with the combined limits of the underlying policies in that policy period. The excess policies also provided, in various ways, that “other insurance” must be exhausted before the excess policy can be accessed. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Michael E. DiFebbo, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. DiFebbo may be contacted at difebbom@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Interpreting Insurance Coverage and Exclusions: When Sudden means Sudden and EIFS means Faulty

    June 15, 2020 —
    EIFS, or Exterior Insulation and Finish System, is an integrated exterior insulation and synthetic stucco system, praised for its energy efficiency.[1] However, EIFS has come to be well known in the construction defect world as placing homes at risk due to a lack of a built-in moisture management system. Before long, insurance companies recognized the risk and began explicitly excluding coverage for EIFS-related damage. However, EIFS exclusions have not always been so clearly set forth in some policies, causing insurance coverage litigation. Recently, a Greenwood Village couple, Mark and Susan Mock, lost this fight. Built in 1994, the Mocks’ home was constructed with an EIFS system. The Mocks carried a homeowner’s insurance policy through Allstate, which covered “sudden and accidental loss” to property, but excluded coverage for “planning, construction or maintenance” issues. Such “planning, construction or maintenance” exclusions included “faulty, inadequate or defective designs.” A few months after a hailstorm, the Mocks discovered moisture-related damage to their home’s EIFS system. They reported the damage to Allstate, but Allstate would not cover it, reasoning that the damage to the EIFS system was excluded as a design and/or construction failure, and thus not covered as a “sudden and accidental” loss. The experts who evaluated the damage concluded it was the result of inherent flaws in the EIFS systems common in the 1994 timeframe, which involved long term moisture intrusion behind the cladding and no means for the water to escape. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Benjamin Volpe, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Volpe may be contacted at volpe@hhmrlaw.com

    SB 939 Proposes Moratorium On Unlawful Detainer Actions For Commercial Tenants And Allows Tenants Who Can't Renegotiate Their Lease In Good Faith To Terminate Their Lease Without Liability

    June 01, 2020 —
    SB 939 is currently working its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee. The legislation would impose new obligations on landlords, and provide protections for commercial tenants who meet specified criteria. SB 939 would impose a moratorium on eviction of those qualified commercial tenants while emergency COVID-19 orders are in effect. Any eviction actions commenced after the date of the emergency COVID-19 order, but before the adoption of SB 939, would be void and unenforceable. The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for SB 939 on May 22, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. Who qualifies as a commercial tenant under SB 939? To qualify under this legislation, a commercial tenant must be a business that operates primarily in California. The commercial tenant must be a small business, nonprofit, an eating or drinking establishment, place of entertainment, or performance venue. Publicly traded companies or any company owned by, or affiliated with a publicly traded company, do not qualify. The commercial tenant must have experienced a decline of at least 40 percent monthly revenue, either as compared to two months before the emergency COVID-19 order, or other local government shelter-in-place orders took effect, or as compared to the same month in 2019. If the commercial tenant is an eating or drinking establishment, place of entertainment, or performance venue, the commercial tenant must also show a decline of 25 percent or more in capacity due to social or physical distancing orders or safety concerns, and show that it is subject to regulations to prevent the spread of COVID-19 that will financially impair the business when compared to the period before the emergency COVID-19 order or other local shelter-in-place orders took effect. What eviction actions are prohibited while emergency COVID-19 orders are in effect? If adopted, SB 939 would add Section 1951.9 to the Civil Code. This section would make it unlawful to terminate a tenancy, serve notice to terminate a tenancy, use lockout or utility shutoff actions to terminate a tenancy or otherwise evict a tenant of commercial real property, including a business or nonprofit, during the pendency of the COVID-19 emergency order proclaimed by Governor Newsome on March 4, 2020. Exceptions apply if a tenant poses a threat to the property, other tenants or a person, business or other entity. Any violations of this eviction prohibition would be against public policy and unenforceable. Any eviction started after proclamation of the state of emergency but before the effective date is deemed void, against public policy and is unenforceable. Does SB 939 impose new penalties or remedies? Any landlord who harasses, mistreats or retaliates against a commercial tenant to force the tenant to abrogate the lease would be subject to a fine of $2,000 for each violation. Further, any such violation would be an unlawful business practice and an act of unfair competition under Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code and would be subject to all available remedies or penalties for those actions under state law. When is a commercial tenant required to pay unpaid rent due to COVID-19? If a commercial tenant fails to pay rent during the emergency COVID-19 order, the sum total of the past due rent must be paid within 12 months following the date of the end of the emergency proclamation, unless the commercial tenant has successfully negotiated an agreement with its landlord to pay the outstanding rent at a later date. Nonpayment of rent during the state of emergency cannot be used as grounds for eviction. Notwithstanding lease terms to the contrary, landlords may not impose late charges for rent that became due during the state of emergency. Are landlords required to provide notice of protections adopted under SB 939? Landlords would be required to provide notice to commercial tenants of the protections offered under SB 939 within 30 days of the effective date. SB 939 does not preempt local legislation or ordinances restricting the same or similar conduct which impose a more severe penalty for the same conduct. Local legislation or ordinances may impose additional notice requirements. Does SB 939 impose new protections for commercial tenants when negotiating lease modifications? If enacted, SB 939 would permit commercial tenants to open negotiations for new lease terms, and provide commercial tenants the ability to terminate the lease if those negotiations fail. A commercial tenant who wishes to modify its commercial lease, may engage in good faith negotiations with its landlord to modify any rent or economic requirement regardless of the term remaining on the lease. The commercial tenant must serve a notice on the landlord certifying that it meets the required criteria, along with the desired modifications. If the commercial tenant and landlord do not reach a mutually satisfactory agreement within 30 days, then within 10 days, the commercial tenant may terminate the lease without any liability for future rent, fees, or costs that otherwise may have been due under the lease by providing a written termination notice to the landlord. The commercial tenant would be required to pay previously due rent, in an amount no greater than the sum of the following: (1) the actual rent due during the emergency COVID-19 order, or a maximum of three months of the past due rent during that period, and (2) all rent incurred and unpaid during a time unrelated to the emergency COVID-19 order through the date of the termination notice. The payment is due within 12 months from date of the termination notice. The commercial tenant would be required to vacate the premises within 14 days of the landlord's receipt of the termination notice. Upon service of the notice, any lease, and any third party guaranties of the lease would terminate. If the landlord and commercial tenant reach an agreement to modify the lease, the commercial tenant would not have the option to later terminate the lease under this provision. When is the next Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting for SB 939? The Senate Judiciary Committee set a hearing for SB 939 on May 22, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The Senate will livestream the hearing on its website at www.sen.ca.gov. Public comments or testimony may be submitted in writing to the Judiciary Committee by emailing Erica.porter@sen.ca.gov. Alternatively, the public may participate via telephone during the public comment period. Any changes to the Judicial Committee schedule may be found at: https://www.senate.ca.gov/calendar. Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at NDcovid19response@ndlf.com or visit us at www.newmeyerdillion.com/covid-19-multidisciplinary-task-force/. Rhonda Kreger is Senior Counsel on Newmeyer Dillion's transactional team at our Newport Beach office. Her practice focuses on all aspects of commercial real estate law, with a particular emphasis on the representation of residential developers, merchant builders and institutional investors. You can reach Rhonda at rhonda.kreger@ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Top 10 Cases of 2019

    February 10, 2020 —
    In the 2019 edition of SDV’s Top Ten Insurance Cases, we probe wiretapping claims under an armed security services policy, delicately sniff out E&O coverage for a company using cow manure to create electricity, scour the earth for coverage for crumbling foundation claims, and inspect D&O policies for government investigation coverage. In addition, we preview some important and exciting decisions due in 2020. Without further ado, SDV raises the curtain on the most informative and influential insurance coverage decisions of 2019.1 1. ACE American Ins. Co. v. American Medical Plumbing, Inc., 206 A.3d 437 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019) April 4, 2019 Is waiver of subrogation language in a standard AIA201 contract sufficient to bar an insurer’s subrogation rights? The New Jersey Supreme Court held that it was. Equinox Development obtained a comprehensive blanket all-risk policy with limits of $32 million per occurrence from ACE American Ins. Co. (“ACE”). The policy covered Equinox’s new project in Summit, New Jersey. Equinox hired Grace Construction as GC, who in turn subcontracted the plumbing scope of work to American Medical Plumbing, Inc. (“American”). After completion of the work under the subcontract, a water main failed and flooded the entire project. ACE paid the limits of the policy and subrogated against American to recover its losses. American argued that there was a waiver of subrogation in the AIA201 contract that barred the suit. ACE challenged the validity of the AIA provision, arguing that it applied only to claims before completion of construction and that it only applied to damage to the work itself and not to adjacent property. The court rejected both arguments, finding that the AIA provision effectively barred ACE’s subrogation claim. This decision provides guidance on a frequently used contract form for contractors across the country. Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. attorneys Jeffrey J. Vita, Grace V. Hebbel and Andrew G. Heckler Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at gvh@sdvlaw.com Mr. Heckler may be contacted at agh@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    When Coronavirus Cases Spike at Construction Jobsites

    July 27, 2020 —
    When Covid-19 took hold in several US states in early spring, Choate Construction responded, as many contractors did, by quickly adopting federal workplace safety guidelines for disinfecting surfaces and maintaining social distancing. Enhanced by various state lockdown measures for businesses and the general public, the new safety system seemed to work with only a handful of workers on Choate’s projects testing positive. Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record reporters Richard Korman, Scott Judy and Jeff Rubenstone Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Proposed Legislation for Losses from COVID-19 and Limitations on the Retroactive Impairment of Contracts

    July 27, 2020 —
    The COVID-19 pandemic has caused most businesses to temporarily close and, as a result, sustain significant losses. Various states are contemplating the passage of legislation to require carriers to cover claims arising from COVID-19, but case law regarding the constitutionality of such legislation is conflicting. Depending on the facts surrounding retroactive legislation, states may be able to pass an enforceable law leading to coverage. Pennsylvania’s Proposed Legislation for Business Interruption Losses Pennsylvania is one of many states that has proposed legislation to override language in business interruption policies and require coverage from insurance carriers. Pennsylvania House Bill 2372 proposes that any insurance policy that covers loss or property damage, including loss of use and business interruption, must cover the policyholder’s losses from the COVID-19 pandemic.1 It applies to insureds with fewer than 100 employees.2 To enhance its chances to pass constitutional challenges, the House Bill also provides for potential relief and reimbursement through the state’s commissioner.3 Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1127 is broader than House Bill 2372 and most bills proposed in other states and would require indemnification for nearly all insureds.4 The Senate Bill makes important legislative findings and notes that insurance is a regulated industry.5 It essentially provides that an insurance policy insuring against a loss relating to property damage, including business interruption, shall be construed to cover loss or property damage due to COVID-19 or due to a civil authority order resulting from COVID-19.1 The proposed bill redefines “property damage” to include: (1) the presence of a person positively identified as having been infected with COVID-19; (2) the presence of at least one person positively identified as having been infected with COVID-19 in the same municipality where the property is located; or (3) the presence of COVID-19 having otherwise been detected in Pennsylvania. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shaia Araghi, Newmeyer Dillion
    Ms. Araghi may be contacted at shaia.araghi@ndlf.com