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

    Illinois Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB4873 Pending: The Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act provides that a construction professional shall be liable to a homeowner for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the professional and his or her agents, employees, or subcontractors. This bill requires the service of notice to the professional of the complained-of defect in the construction by the homeowner prior to commencement of a lawsuit. Allows the professional to make an offer of repair or settlement and to rescind this offer if the claimant fails to respond within 30 days.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Cherry Illinois

    No state license required for general contracting. License required for roofing.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of the Greater Rockford Area
    Local # 1465
    631 N Longwood St Suite 102
    Rockford, IL 61107
    http://www.hbarockford.com

    Home Builders Association of Greater Chicago
    Local # 1425
    5999 S. New Wilke Rd Ste 104
    Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
    http://www.hbagc.com

    Home Builders Association of Greater Fox Valley
    Local # 1431
    PO Box 1146
    Saint Charles, IL 60174
    http://www.buildfoxvalley.com

    Northern Illinois Home Builders Association Inc
    Local # 1434
    3695 Darlene Ct Ste 102
    Aurora, IL 60504
    http://www.nihba.com

    SouthWest Suburban Home Builders Association
    Local # 1432
    10767 W 163rd Pl
    Orland Park, IL 60467
    http://www.sshba.com

    Home Builders Association of Kankakee
    Local # 1445
    221 S Schuyler Ave Ste B
    Kankakee, IL 60901
    http://www.hbakankakee.com/

    Home Builders Association of Greater Peoria
    Local # 1455
    1599 N Main Street
    East Peoria, IL 61611
    http://www.peoriahba.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Cherry Illinois

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    West Hollywood Building: Historic Building May Be Defective

    JDi Data Introduces Mobile App for Litigation Cost Allocation

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms Eight-Year Limit on Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Exclusion Bars Coverage for Mold, Fungus

    Construction Spending Dropped in July

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition

    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    Fifth Circuit Reverses Insurers’ Summary Judgment Award Based on "Your Work" Exclusion

    School Sues over Botched Pool

    Contractor Burns Down Home, Insurer Refuses Coverage

    Important Information Regarding Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Rights.

    Cabinetmaker Exceeds Expectations as Conditions Improve

    Instant Hotel Tower, But Is It Safe?

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93

    Texas Construction Firm Files for Bankruptcy

    Five Years of Great Legal Blogging at Insurance Law Hawaii

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    When Does a Claim Against an Insurance Carrier for Failing to Defend Accrue?

    No Coverage for Counterclaim Alleging Construction Defects Pled as Breach of Contract

    Eleventh Circuit Asks Georgia Supreme Court if Construction Defects Are Caused by an "Occurrence"

    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

    A Lien Might Just Save Your Small Construction Business

    “Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit

    MGM Seeks to Demolish Harmon Towers

    Texas “your work” exclusion

    Defect Claims as Occurrences? Check Your State Laws

    Pipes May Be Defective, But Owners Lack Standing

    Irene May Benefit Construction Industry

    West Coast Casualty Promises Exciting Line Up at the Nineteenth Annual Conference

    Boyfriend Pleads Guilty in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Suicide

    Construction on the Rise in Denver

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

    Seven Tips to Manage Construction Defect Risk

    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

    Hawaii State Senate Requires CGL Carriers to Submit Premium Information To State Legislature

    Plaintiff Not Entitled to Further Damages over Defective Decking

    After Katrina Came Homes that Could Withstand Isaac

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Court Sends Construction Defect Case from Kansas to Missouri

    Colorado “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    Mississippi exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    Water Is the Enemy

    Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    Firm Sued For Construction Defects in Parking Garage

    Court Rejects Anti-SLAPP Motion in Construction Defect Suit

    Workers Hurt in Casino Floor Collapse

    Steps to Defending against Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Florida Chinese drywall, pollution exclusion, “your work” exclusion, and “sistership” exclusion.

    Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear

    Federal District Court Predicts Florida Will Adopt Injury In Fact Trigger

    Discovery Ordered in Nevada Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    Supreme Court of Oregon Affirms Decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al.

    One World Trade Center Due to Be America’s Tallest and World’s Priciest

    Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

    Construction Delayed by Discovery of Bones

    Ninety-Day Extension Denied to KB Home in Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Minnesota Starts Wide-Ranging Registration of Contractors

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Earth Movement Exclusion Denied

    Broker Not Liable for Failure to Reveal Insurer's Insolvency After Policy Issued

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    Defective Drains Covered Despite Water Intrusion Exclusion

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    Nevada District Court Dismisses Case in Construction Defect Coverage Suit

    A Downside of Associational Standing - HOA's Claims Against Subcontractors Barred by Statute of Limitations

    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

    Celebrities Lose Case in Construction Defect Arbitration

    Equipment Costs? It’s a Steal!

    Construction Defect Bill Introduced in California

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    Contract Not So Clear in South Carolina Construction Defect Case

    Florida trigger

    Architect Not Responsible for Injuries to Guests

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    Lawsuit over Construction Defects Not a Federal Case

    Louisiana Politicians Struggle on Construction Bills, Hospital Redevelopment

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer
    Corporate Profile

    CHERRY ILLINOIS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Cherry, Illinois Construction Expert Witness Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 5,500 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Cherry's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Cherry, Illinois

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    January 6, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A homeowners’ association in Lake Oswego, Oregon has filed a $5 million lawsuit against the developers of the luxury townhomes. The homeowners of Sunset Crossing are suing Centurion Homes and Aspen Townhomes over claims that construction defects have lead to water intrusion and structural damages. The townhomes were built in 2005.

    Andy Burns, the lawyer for Phillip and Patricia Gentelmann, the owners of both Centurion Homes and Aspen Townhomes, said the Gentelmanns were “taking these allegations very seriously.” The suit says that the construction violated state and local building codes and that the firms did not repair damage caused by water intrusion.

    Read the full story…


    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    September 1, 2011 — Tred Eyerley, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The underlying plaintiff’s allegations contended the contractor was in breach of contract for construction defects caused in building her home. Accordingly, the court found no coverage.See Nat’l Builders and Contractors Ins. Co. v. Slocum, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81694 (S.D. Miss. July 26, 2011).

    Slocum Construction LLC sold a home it built to Laura Peterson. Subsequently, Peterson filed suit, alleging a breach of the contract and seeking rescission and cancellation of the contract. Peterson further alleged at least thirty-three specific defects in the construction of the house.

    Slocum tendered to its insurer, National Builders and Contractors Insurance Company (NBCI). NBCI filed suit for a declaratory judgment.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com


    Homebuilding Still on the Rise

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The National Association of Home Builders reports that spending on private homes was up three percent in October 2012, bringing it to a four-year high. This was part of a trend in which fourteen of the last fifteen months have seen increases in spending on residential construction. Likewise, multifamily residences have seen thirteen months of increased spending, putting it 82% higher than its low, two years ago. ¬?In addition to new homes, remodeling is also up, reaching its highest point in five years.

    Read the full story…


    Seven Tips to Manage Construction Defect Risk

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Jody T. Wright looks at “seven strategies being used around the country to identify, manage and mitigate your exposures” in a piece in Business Insurance. Wright, Senior VP, Construction Department Manager for Lockton Companies in Denver, gives seven simple steps from the perspective of a insurer.

    His first step is to match your project to your insurance. He suggests keeping the riskier projects separate, noting that from an insurer’s point-of-view, “any project that creates a homeowners association carries a higher potential threat of future litigation.” This leads to his second point: you need to “determine what makes your liability insurer nervous.” In other words, talk with your insurer.

    His third point suggests that builders look back and see if there is a pattern of problems that have lead to payouts from your insurer. Keep your insurer happier by making sure these areas don’t continue to be problems. Nor should you look for new problems. He suggests against leading in new technologies.

    Three more points deal with being careful about with whom you associate. He tells builders to negotiate their contracts, avoiding clauses that would obligate a builder to “indemnify the owner for the negligent work of others that they did not control.” Avoid subcontractors “with loss patterns that might affect your project and reputation.” Builders should identify “owners with a pattern of suing contractors” adding that risk to the cost of the job. They should also identify “the most effective attorneys and expert witnesses” and get them involved before the litigation starts.

    Read the full story…


    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    After a period of growth, the construction industry lost 20,000 jobs in November, based on the federal jobs data. Damon Scott of New Mexico Business Weekly suggests that contractors may have laid off employees in anticipation of the “fiscal cliff.” Ken Simpson, the chief economist of the National Association of Home Builders said in a press release that “it is discouraging that construction employment is still struggling after three years of expansion in the overall economy.”

    Read the full story…


    Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Martha Johnson, the head of the General Services Administration, has said that her agency will not be building any new buildings in the near future. Among other duties, the GSA is responsible for the building, renovating, and leasing of federal office space. The White House had proposed $840 million in new construction, the Senate only $56 million. The House did not appropriate any money for the agency to use for new construction.

    In addition to cutbacks on new buildings, Congress is suggesting only $280 million in repairs of existing government buildings. In order to cut back, the GSA has dropped plans to renovate their own offices in favor of renovations at the Department of Homeland Security and the Food and Drug Administration.

    Read the full story…


    The King of Construction Defect Scams

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Echoing Businessweek, the Las Vegas Sun agrees that the Nevada HOA scandal is the “king of all Vegas real estate scams,” and says that the Nevada legislatures should take action. The Sun notes that the case involves only 12 out of 2,356 HOAs in Southern Nevada.

    To date, 25 people have plead guilty in the case. At the center were an attorney and contractor who allegedly referred work to each other. To enable this, they assembled a wider conspiracy of people who enriched by the process. In the words of the Sun, those involved “upended the concept of a ‘common interest’ community.”

    Read the full story…


    The Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

    March 17, 2011 — By Shaun McParland Baldwin, March 17, 2011

    The Court of Appeals of Indiana recently addressed the “Montrose” language added to the CGL ISO form in 2001 in the context of a construction defect claim where a fractured storm drain caused significant flooding a year after the drain was damaged. The insuring agreement requires that “bodily injury or “property damage” be caused by an occurrence and that the “bodily injury or “property damage” occur during the policy period. The Montrose language adds that the insurance applies only if, prior to the policy period, no insured knew that the “bodily injury or “property damage” had occurred in whole or in part. Significantly, it also states that any “bodily injury” or “property damage” which occurs during the policy period and was not, prior to the policy period known to have occurred, includes a continuation, change or resumption of that “bodily injury” or “property damage” after the end of the policy period.

    In Grange Mutual Cas. Co. v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., No. 29D04-0706-PL-1112 (Ct. App. IN March 15, 2011), http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03151109ehf.pdf, Sullivan was the General Contractor for a school construction project. Its subcontractor, McCurdy, installed the storm drain pipes. One of the storm pipes was fractured in 2005 while McCurdy was doing its installation work. More than a year later, the school experienced significant water damage due to flooding. It was later discovered that the flooding was due to the fractured storm drain. Sullivanrsquo;s insurer paid $146,403 for the water damage. That insurer brought a subrogation claim against McCurdy and its two insurers: West Bend and Grange. West Bend had issued CGL coverage to McCurdy while the construction was ongoing, including the date in which the storm pipe was fractured. Grange issued CGL coverage to McCurdy at the time of the flooding. Those two carriers jointly settled the subrogation claim and then litigated which insurer actually owed coverage for the loss. Significantly, the loss that was paid included only damages from the flooding, not any damages for the cost of repairing the pipe.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Shaun McParland Baldwin of Tressler LLP. Ms Baldwin can be contacted at sbaldwin@tresslerllp.com


    Insurer Must Cover Construction Defects Claims under Actual Injury Rule

    March 1, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The Texas Court of Appeals held that the insured need not prove the exact dates physical damage occurred in order to trigger defense and indemnity coverage. Vines-Herrin Custom Homes, LLC v. Great Am. Lloyds Ins. Co., 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 10027 (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2011).

    In 1999, the insured built a home. He was insured under a CGL policy issued by Great American from November 9, 1998 to November 9, 2000. Thereafter, the insured held a CGL policy issued by Mid-Continent from November 9, 2000 to September 18, 2002.

    After construction was completed, the insured sold the house to the buyer in May 2000. After moving in, the buyer found numerous construction defects in the home, including water entering cracks in the home, and sinking and sagging of parts of the house. The buyer sued the insured, who sought coverage under the two policies. When the insurers refused to defend the underlying suit, the insured sued for a declaratory judgment.

    The underlying case went to arbitration and an award of $2.4 million was granted to the buyer. The insured assigned to the buyer his claims against the insurers.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com


    Liability policy covers negligent construction: GA high court

    October 31, 2010 — Original article by Michael Bradford in Business Insurance

    ATLANTA—Negligent construction that results in damage to surrounding property constitutes an occurrence under a commercial general liability policy, the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled.

    In a 6-1 opinion Monday in American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Co. Inc. vs. Hathaway Development Co. Inc., the Georgia high court upheld a lower court ruling that the general contractor’s claim for damage caused by a subcontractor’s faulty plumbing work was covered.

    The ruling on construction defects is the latest in number of such cases across the United States

    Read Full Story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Bradford of Business Insurance.


    Defective Shingle Claims Valid Despite Bankruptcy

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Third Circuit Court has allowed claims to go forward against Owens Corning for making allegedly defective shingles. The shingles split, leading to leaking roofs. The building products manufacturer filed for bankruptcy in 2000, which “extinguished” claims against it. The company was facing millions in liabilities over asbestos lawsuits.

    The lawsuit was filed in 2009. The courts initially found the lawsuit timely, but the Third Circuit Court later applied determined the exposure stated before the bankruptcy. On appeal, the court has reversed this and is again allowing the suit to proceed.

    Read the full story…


    Arizona Homeowners Must Give Notice of Construction Defect Claims

    August 2, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Chris Combs of the Combs Law Group notes that “the new home construction industry is recovering” and that some of the buyers of these homes “will have claims for construction defects.” But not so quick on filing that claim.

    Under Arizona law, as Mr. Combs notes the law “requires that, at least 90 days before filing any lawsuit, the buyer furnish notice by certified mail to the homebuilder specifying in detail the construction defect.” Only if there is no agreement over proposed repair can the homeowner file a lawsuit.

    Read the full story…


    Tampa Condo Owners Allege Defects

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Owners in the Bel Mare towers have filed a lawsuit alleging that the building have construction defects that could lead to problems during periods with high winds. The Tampa Bay Business Journal reports that the condo association has sued the developer, the general contractor, the architects, the structural engineers, and subcontractors.

    Read the full story…


    Florida Construction Defect Case Settled for $3 Million

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Runaway Beach Club Condominium Association of Kissimmee, Florida has settled its construction defect claims against the parties involved in the construction and development of the buildings. The association claimed that defective roofs and improperly installed windows had lead to leaks and associated damages. A trial date had been set, but parties involved were able to reach this settlement instead.

    Read the full story…


    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    There was a significant increase in the number of open construction jobs during October, according to a report for the National Association of Home Builders. Working from preliminary data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the NAHB said that the number of open positions reached “levels and rates last seen in 2007.” As the data is still preliminary, the NAHB noted that the conclusions should be taken with caution.

    While there was a spike in job openings, the hiring of people to fill these positions hasn’t caught up with it, and there was a small decline in hires. But to return to the good news, there was also a drop in layoffs in that same period.

    Through October, about 8,000 people have been hired in the construction sector. The NAHB notes that this does not correspond with the recent increases with home construction. They suggest that “it may be the case that startups in the home building and remodeling sectors are being missed by the establishment survey.” Another possibility they raise is that already-employed construction workers are simply working more hours.

    Read the full story…


    Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

    September 1, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    This is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog.  Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.

    In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.

    The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com


    Pipes May Be Defective, But Owners Lack Standing

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The United States District Court in Minnesota has determined that Steven and Cecilia Thundander cannot make a class-action claim against Uponor, Inc. over the plumbing in their home, as they do not have Article III standing. In this situation, the alleged defect is that Uponor made fraudulent claims that the pipes met National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) standards for use in potable water systems. Uponor submitted samples of other pipes, and their substitution was discovered when the NSF made an inspection of the manufacturing facility. The court noted that “the Thunanders contend that Uponor failed to inform homeowners, plumbers and consumers that it had been selling pipe that failed to meet NSF toxicity requirements at the time of sale and installation.”

    The Court noted that the Thunanders have not tested their piping to determine if they “demonstrate toxicity or lack of compliance with the NSF 61 standards,” noting also that the Complaint seeks to require Uponor to instruct the plaintiffs on “how to test the piping and water to determine the level of risk.” Lacking testing, the Court could not find that the Thundanders have defective pipes. The Court found that the “Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing as to their product liability claims.”

    The Court also concluded that it could not determine if the Plaintiff’s warranty actions could not be applied, as they “have failed to allege a plausible defect.” Even in the presence of a defect, the Court noted that more than eight years had passed before the filing of the suit, when the warranties under both Indiana and Minnesota law have a four-year statute of limitations. The Court also rejected the Thunanders tort claims, once again because “Plaintiffs have not tested their pipes,” noting that “a tort requires the existence of an injury.”

    In conclusion, Judge Nelson rejected the entirety of the complaint, granting the motions to dismiss by the defendants. However, despite the problems with the Thunanders’ claims, she found that they were not “patently frivolous or groundless.” Therefore, she denied attorney fees requested by one of the defendants.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The downtown Indianapolis area is the site of about 85 major building projects that are from groundbreaking to just complete. The Indianapolis Star reports that the cumulative worth of the projects is about $3 billion, a level of construction that Indianapolis has seen only once before.

    About thirty of the projects are residential. The main commercial project is a $754 million hospital building. The boom in downtown Indianapolis is not matched elsewhere, with the Indianapolis Star reporting that in the rest of Central Indiana, construction has slowed.

    Read the full story…