BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois institutional building expert witness Flossmoor Illinois housing expert witness Flossmoor Illinois retail construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois industrial building expert witness Flossmoor Illinois structural steel construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois hospital construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois parking structure expert witness Flossmoor Illinois concrete tilt-up expert witness Flossmoor Illinois Medical building expert witness Flossmoor Illinois production housing expert witness Flossmoor Illinois mid-rise construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois condominium expert witness Flossmoor Illinois custom home expert witness Flossmoor Illinois condominiums expert witness Flossmoor Illinois tract home expert witness Flossmoor Illinois casino resort expert witness Flossmoor Illinois Subterranean parking expert witness Flossmoor Illinois office building expert witness Flossmoor Illinois custom homes expert witness Flossmoor Illinois high-rise construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois landscaping construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois
    Flossmoor Illinois slope failure expert witnessFlossmoor Illinois architectural engineering expert witnessFlossmoor Illinois civil engineer expert witnessFlossmoor Illinois construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFlossmoor Illinois construction code expert witnessFlossmoor Illinois stucco expert witnessFlossmoor Illinois consulting engineers
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer Builders Information
    Flossmoor, 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.


    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Flossmoor Illinois

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


    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    SouthWest Suburban Home Builders Association
    Local # 1432
    10767 W 163rd Pl
    Orland Park, IL 60467

    Flossmoor Illinois Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Northern Illinois Home Builders Association Inc
    Local # 1434
    3695 Darlene Ct Ste 102
    Aurora, IL 60504

    Flossmoor Illinois Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Fox Valley
    Local # 1431
    PO Box 1146
    Saint Charles, IL 60174

    Flossmoor Illinois Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Kankakee
    Local # 1445
    221 S Schuyler Ave Ste B
    Kankakee, IL 60901

    Flossmoor Illinois Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Chicago
    Local # 1425
    5999 S. New Wilke Rd Ste 104
    Rolling Meadows, IL 60008

    Flossmoor Illinois Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of the Greater Rockford Area
    Local # 1465
    631 N Longwood St Suite 102
    Rockford, IL 61107

    Flossmoor Illinois Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Peoria
    Local # 1455
    1599 N Main Street
    East Peoria, IL 61611

    Flossmoor Illinois Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10


    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Flossmoor Illinois


    When Can a General Contractor’s Knowledge be Imputed to a Developer?

    CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    Haight Ranked in 2018 U.S. News - Best Lawyers "Best Law Firms" List

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

    Connecticut Federal District Court Keeps Busy With Collapse Cases

    Anatomy of an Indemnity Provision

    In Construction Your Contract May Not Always Preclude a Negligence Claim

    Bank Sues over Defective Windows

    Bad Faith Claim For Independent Contractor's Reduced Loss Assessment Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim

    Lennar Profit Tops Estimates as Home Prices Increase

    Wisconsin High Court Rejects Insurer’s Misuse of “Other Insurance” Provision

    We Knew Concrete Could Absorb Carbon—New Study Tells How Much

    The Future of Construction Defects in Utah Unclear

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Cover Collapse Fails

    Power Point Presentation on Nautilus v. Lexington Case

    Rooftop Owners Sue Cubs Consultant for Alleged False Statements

    New Joint Venture to Develop a New Community in Orange County, California

    Nevada Budget Remains at Impasse over Construction Defect Law

    California Supreme Court Finds Negligent Supervision Claim Alleges An Occurrence

    Contract Change #9: Owner’s Right to Carry Out the Work (law note)

    Wendel Rosen Construction Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers

    California Court Invokes Equity to Stretch Anti-Subrogation Rule Principles

    Client Alert: Expert Testimony in Indemnity Action Not Limited to Opinions Presented in Underlying Matter

    Supreme Court of Canada Broadly Interprets Exception to Faulty Workmanship Exclusion

    Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

    Six-Month Prison Term for Role in HOA Scam

    Appeals Court Finds Manuscript Additional Insured Endorsements Ambiguous Regarding Completed Operations Coverage for Additional Insured

    Can a Contractor be Liable to Second Buyers of Homes for Construction Defects?

    Sacramento’s Commercial Construction Market Heats Up

    Bad Faith Jury Verdict Upheld After Insurer's Failure to Settle Within Policy Limits

    Fifth Circuit Rules that Settlements in Underlying Action Constitute "Other Insurance"

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs Paid by Other Insurers

    Chinese Brooklyn-to-Los Angeles Plans Surge: Real Estate

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

    Chinese Millionaire Roils Brokers Over Shrinking Mansion

    Canada Housing Surprises Again With July Starts Increase

    Submitting Claims on Government Projects Can Be Tricky

    It’s All a Matter of [Statutory] Construction: Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets the Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Requirements in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.

    Think Twice About Depreciating Repair Costs in Our State, says the Tennessee Supreme Court

    China Home Glut May Worsen as Developers Avoid Price Drop

    Fargo Shows Record Home Building

    Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052: The “Transit-Oriented Development Claims Act of 2013.”

    Deleted Emails Cost Company $3M in Sanctions

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorney Alan Packer Selected to the 2017 Northern California Super Lawyers List

    Developer’s Failure to Plead Amount of Damages in Cross-Complaint Fatal to Direct Action Against Subcontractor’s Insurers Based on Default Judgment

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded as Part of "Damages Because of Property Damage"
    Corporate Profile

    FLOSSMOOR ILLINOIS EXPERT WITNESS ENGINEER
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 5500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Flossmoor, Illinois Expert Witness Engineer Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Flossmoor's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Flossmoor, Illinois

    Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Dorian

    September 16, 2019 —
    While Hurricane Dorian churns in the Atlantic with its sights currently set on the east coast of Florida, storm preparations should be well underway. As you are busy organizing efforts to secure your job sites, we at Peckar & Abramson offer some quick reminders that may prove helpful:
    • Review your contracts, particularly the force majeure provisions, and be sure to comply with applicable notice requirements
    • Even if not expressly required at this time, consider providing written notice to project owners that their projects are being prepared for a potential hurricane or tropical storm and that the productivity and progress of the work will be affected, with the actual time and cost impact to be determined after the event.
    • Consult your hurricane plan (which is often a contract exhibit) and confirm compliance with all specified safety, security and protection measures.
    • Provide written notice to your subcontractors and suppliers of the actions they are required to take to secure and protect their portions of the work and the timetable for completion of their storm preparations.
    Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, PC attorneys Adam P. Handfinger, Stephen H. Reisman and Gary M. Stein Mr. Handfinger may be contacted at ahandfinger@pecklaw.com Mr. Reisman may be contacted at sreisman@pecklaw.com Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    BIM Legal Liabilities: Not That Different

    February 10, 2020 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome Scott P. Fitzsimmons. Scott is an attorney with the construction law firm Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, where he represents contractors, subcontractors, owners, and engineers. He is also a LEED AP and an instructor for AGC of D.C., where he teaches BIM Contract Negotiation and Risk Allocation as part of AGC’s Certificate of Management, Building Information Modeling program. When a new technology is introduced to the construction industry, contractors inevitably ask themselves one question “Great, how can this new gadget get me into trouble?” Building Information Modeling (BIM) is exactly the kind of technology that raises this fear. But, BIM has been around for a few years now, and the construction industry has done a good job of curtailing the fear of unanticipated legal liability. Nevertheless, contractors should be aware of the pitfalls BIM introduces and should know how to limit their risk arising from this new “gadget.” Often described as “CAD on Steroids,” BIM is truly much more than a simple design program. Along with early clash detection, BIM provides time and cost integration; calculates energy efficiency; and assists building maintenance long after project completion. Unlike CAD, BIM also modifies the collaborative nature of a construction project. Thus, subcontractors no longer review a design, submit shop drawings, and go to work. Rather, subcontractors are brought into the design process early in the project and often are asked to contribute to the design long before construction begins. Asking a contractor or subcontractor to provide design services appears to shift the roles of an architect and a contractor. So, the questions abound: Is a contractor now responsible for design? Can the contractor be held responsible for defective design? Do not fret. To date, there has been only one advertised case addressing BIM liability. The reason is simple. For almost a hundred years, the United States Supreme Court has held that contractors are not responsible for defective design on a traditional design-bid-build project. Using BIM, therefore, should not modify a contractor’s responsibility. But, to ensure that your obligations do not extend beyond construction, all BIM requirements should be in writing and made part of your contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Supreme Court Set to Alter Law on Key Project, Workforce Issues

    December 02, 2019 —
    With its term now under way, the U.S. Supreme Court could change federal laws with industry impact—from where huge pipelines can be built and new regulation of pollution in groundwater to whether LGBTQ workers have anti-bias rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

    January 20, 2020 —
    I have spoken often regarding the need for a well written construction contract that sets out the “terms of engagement” for your construction project. A written construction contract sets expectations and allows the parties to the contract to determine the “law” of their project. An unwritten “gentleman’s agreement” can lead to confusion, faulty memories, and more money paid to construction counsel than you would like as we lawyers play around in the grey areas. One other area where the written versus unwritten distinction makes a difference is in the calculation of the statute of limitations. In Virginia, a 5 year statute of limitations applies to written contracts while a 3 year statute of limitations applies to unwritten contracts. This distinction came into stark relief in the case of M&C Hauling & Constr. Inc. v. Wilbur Hale in the Fairfax, Virginia Circuit Court. In M&C Hauling, M&C provided hauling services to the defendant through a subcontract with Hauling Unlimited in 2014, the last of which was in July. M&C provided over 2000 hours of hauling and provided time tickets (that were passed to Mr. Hale on Hauling Unlimited letterhead and signed by Mr. Hale or his agent) and an invoice stating the price term of $75.00 per hour. No separate written contract between M&C and Hauling Unlimited or Mr. Hale existed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    English v. RKK. . . The Saga Continues

    December 16, 2019 —
    Remember back in 2018 when I thought I’d told you the end of the English Construction story regarding its various consultants, etc.? I was wrong. The matter went up on appeal to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals where the Appeals Court considered the summary judgment granted to the defendant Rummel, Klepper & Kahl (“RKK”) based upon what came down to a contributory negligence reading of the indemnity clause that was allowed to survive in the first district court opinion relating to these ambiguous contracts finding that English was negligent so couldn’t recover. The 4th Circuit also considered the finding that defendant CDM Smith did not breach its contract as a matter of law and that English’s negligence was the cause of the damages. The Court of Appeals reversed both of the holdings by the Western District of Virginia court, essentially stating that there was enough of a factual dispute to render any summary judgment to be premature. As to English’s arguments regarding the indemnity scheme in the contracts, the court found that the interpretation was at least ambiguous enough that summary judgment was inappropriate, stating:
    While we are not prepared to settle conclusively these interpretation disputes at the summary judgment stage, English’s proffered interpretation is, at the very least. reasonable. Indeed, of the two interpretations, English’s seems to be more closely aligned with the actual language in the contract. The district court thus erred in rejecting English’s interpretation and adopting RK&K’s interpretation as a matter of law.
    [A]t bottom, while the district court was authorized to construe unambiguous language as a matter of law, it could not resolve genuine disputes regarding the meaning of ambiguous contractual language against the nonmoving party on summary judgment. We therefore vacate the court’s grant of summary judgment to RK&K and remand for further proceedings.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    General Indemnity Agreement Can Come Back to Bite You

    October 21, 2019 —
    I talk about payment bonds often here at Construction Law Musings. I talk a bit less about performance bonds and even less about the General Indemnity Agreements (GIA) that are signed by companies and their principals as part of the agreement between a construction company and its bonding company for the provision of these bonds. However, this does not mean that these GIA’s are not important. In fact, these are the agreements that allow a bonding provider to recoup any money paid out pursuant to either a payment or performance bond. A 2018 case illustrates their importance. In Allegheny Cas. Co. v. River City Roofing, LLC, the Court considered a claim by Allegheny seeking both specific performance of the collateral agreement and reimbursement of certain expenses and investigative costs expended by Allegheny pursuant to its performance bond. Allegheny sought to be reimbursed for certain payments for siding work, investigative costs, and costs spent enforcing the GIA. Allegheny further sought to force the defendants to post sufficient collateral. To do so, Allegheny sued in the Eastern District of Virginia and then moved for summary judgment stating that the GAI uneuivocally required such a result due to the good faith payment for the siding work and the plain language of the GIA. In response, the Defendants, River City Roofing and its principals that had personally guaranteed the indemnity, argued that the GIA did not apply to the siding work because only the roofing contract was subject to the performance bond and that any bond claims for which collateral was demanded were inchoate and therefore not proper for specific performance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces Partner John Van Vlear Named to Board Of Groundwater Resources Association Of California

    January 13, 2020 —
    Prominent Orange County-based law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that partner John Van Vlear has been elected to the Board of Directors for the Groundwater Resources Association of California (GRA). He will serve a three year term effective immediately. "It was an honor to be nominated and I'm excited to help further GRA's goal of remaining the preeminent professional organization in the West addressing timely and important groundwater issues," says Van Vlear. He has been a member of the GRA for five years and has spoken both at a Southern California branch event and the 2nd Annual Western Groundwater Congress in Sacramento. Serving on the GRA Board will be Van Vlear's fourth different lifetime non-profit Board volunteer effort. He joins a diverse group of members to complete the Board, including a hydrologist with the US Geological Survey, environmental and engineering consultants, an equipment manufacturer, and water agencies' managers. Van Vlear's practice focuses on all aspects of "contaminated sites" environmental legal work. Applying technical acumen, he focuses on investigation, strategic analysis, and remediation for site acquisitions/sales, development, regulatory interface, and related litigation in federal and state courts. He represents clients before a wide range of environmental agencies and has a portfolio of projects that include: commercial, industrial, raw land, and residential, as well as specialty facilities such as affordable housing, oil fields, and landfills throughout California and across the country. These matters have involved a complex blend of soil, groundwater, and vapor contamination. Van Vlear is a frequent speaker on environmental, real estate and contamination topics, as well as being a professional author and novelist, an expert witness, and arbitrator on environmental issues. He has been interviewed on TV twice professionally and has testified before the California Senate subcommittee on Environmental Quality. Established in 1992, the GRA is a 1,000 member state-wide professional organization dedicated to resource management that protects and improves groundwater supply and quality through education and technical leadership. The GRA hosts programs and webinars focusing on important issues to water management community at both the state-wide and regional branch levels. 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 www.newmeyerdillion.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Indiana Federal Court Holds No Coverage for $50M Default Judgment for Lack of Timely Notice of Class Action

    August 26, 2019 —
    In Greene v. Kenneth R. Will, a CGL insurer recently prevailed in a declaratory judgment action arising from an underlying class action alleging pollution and nuisance claims against the insured, VIM Recycling LLC, an Indiana-based waste-recycling facility.[1] “[T]his case has some whiskers on it,” the Indiana federal district court recounted in its exhaustive decision granting the insurer relief. The court relieved the insurer of indemnifying a $50 million default judgment against the insured, which, the court observed, “proved to be a bad neighbor” and “nuisance in both the legal and colloquial sense.” The court held that the insured failed to provide timely notice of the class action. “The judgment against the [insured] came about when a group of nearby homeowners decided that they had had enough of VIM’s polluting behavior and brought this class action to recover damages for environmental violations, nuisance and negligence based on the impact of the waste facility on their homes and property,” the court explained. Eventually, the court entered a default judgment against the insured for $50,568,750, plus an award of $273,339.85 in attorney’s fees. Because the insured was “judgment-proof,” the class action plaintiffs “aligned” with the insured “hoping to collect on their monumental judgment” from the insured’s CGL insurer. Within a few weeks’ time, the class action plaintiffs sued the insurer seeking a declaration of coverage for the default judgment against the insured. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of