• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction expert witness Laurel Indiana condominium expert witness Laurel Indiana high-rise construction expert witness Laurel Indiana office building expert witness Laurel Indiana concrete tilt-up expert witness Laurel Indiana Subterranean parking expert witness Laurel Indiana mid-rise construction expert witness Laurel Indiana tract home expert witness Laurel Indiana condominiums expert witness Laurel Indiana industrial building expert witness Laurel Indiana retail construction expert witness Laurel Indiana multi family housing expert witness Laurel Indiana production housing expert witness Laurel Indiana landscaping construction expert witness Laurel Indiana Medical building expert witness Laurel Indiana low-income housing expert witness Laurel Indiana institutional building expert witness Laurel Indiana custom homes expert witness Laurel Indiana hospital construction expert witness Laurel Indiana structural steel construction expert witness Laurel Indiana parking structure expert witness Laurel Indiana casino resort expert witness Laurel Indiana
    Laurel Indiana roofing and waterproofing expert witnessLaurel Indiana construction defect expert witnessLaurel Indiana stucco expert witnessLaurel Indiana architecture expert witnessLaurel Indiana soil failure expert witnessLaurel Indiana construction project management expert witnessLaurel Indiana expert witness structural engineer
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer Builders Information
    Laurel, Indiana

    Indiana Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: According to SB45160, §IC 32-27-3-1&2 a claimant must provide written notice 60 days before filing an action. Within 21 days after service of the notice, the construction professional must serve a written response. Claimant must file list of known construction defects, description, and the construction professional responsible for each alleged defect (to the extent known).

    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Laurel Indiana

    License required for plumbing. All other licensing is done at the local county level.

    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Gtr Terre Haute
    Local # 1582
    2747 Sidenbender Rd
    Terre Haute, IN 47802

    Laurel Indiana Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Southeastern Indiana chapter
    Local # 1536
    394 W County Road 400 N
    Greensburg, IN 47240
    Laurel Indiana Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Madison County Chapter
    Local # 1504
    853 E. Southern Avenue
    Indianapolis, IN 46203
    Laurel Indiana Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Jackson-Jennings Builders Association
    Local # 1574
    11990 W Mt Healthy Rd
    Columbus, IN 47201

    Laurel Indiana Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Greater Indianapolis
    Local # 1544
    PO Box 44670
    Indianapolis, IN 46244

    Laurel Indiana Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Indiana Builders Association
    Local # 1500
    101 W Ohio St Ste 1111
    Indianapolis, IN 46204

    Laurel Indiana Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Wayne County Builders Association
    Local # 1570
    PO Box 1591
    Richmond, IN 47375

    Laurel Indiana Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Laurel Indiana

    Is Performance Bond Liable for Delay Damages?

    Landmark San Diego Hotel Settles Defects Suit for $6.4 Million

    Jet Crash Blamed on Runway Construction Defect

    Builder Exposes 7 Myths regarding Millennials and Housing

    Nevada Construction Defect Lawyers Dead in Possible Suicides

    Taking the Stairs to Human Wellness and Greener Buildings

    The Problem with One Year Warranties

    South Carolina Homeowners May Finally Get Class Action for Stucco Defects

    Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

    Construction Defect Bill Introduced in California

    July Sees Big Drop in Home Sales

    Finding Plaintiff Intentionally Spoliated Evidence, the Northern District of Indiana Imposes Sanction

    Two Texas Cities Top San Francisco for Property Investors

    The Economic Loss Rule and the Disclosure of Latent Defects: In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis

    White and Williams Obtains Reversal on Appeal of $2.5 Million Verdict Against Electric Utility Company

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 3- The Last Straw

    Resolve to Say “No” This Year

    A Good Examination of Fraud, Contract and Negligence Per Se

    FAA Seeks Largest Fine Yet on Drones in Near-Miss Crackdown

    The Ghosts of Projects Past

    Subcontractor Allowed to Sue Designer for Negligence: California Courts Chip Away at the Economic Loss Doctrine (Independent Duty Rule)

    Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy

    Preparing the Next Generation of Skilled Construction Workers: AGC Workforce Development Plan

    This Is the Most Remote and Magical Hotel on Earth

    Construction Defect Bill a Long Shot in Nevada

    Ohio “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

    Utility Contractor Held Responsible for Damaged Underground Electrical Line

    California Insurance Commissioner Lacks Authority to Regulate Formula for Estimating Replacement Cost Value

    Three Attorneys Named Among The Best Lawyers in America 2018

    Megaproject Savings Opportunities

    Quick Note: Be Careful with Pay if Paid Clauses (Both Subcontractors and General Contractors)

    Undercover Sting Nabs Eleven Illegal Contractors in California

    Triggering Duty to Advance Costs Same Standard as Duty to Defend

    Court Holds That Self-Insured Retentions Exhaust Vertically And Awards Insured Mandatory Prejudgment Interest in Stringfellow Site Coverage Dispute

    Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back

    New York Converting Unlikely Buildings into Condominiums

    Arkansas: Avoiding the "Made Whole" Doctrine Through Dépeçage

    This Times Square Makeover Is Not a Tourist Attraction

    Residential Contractors, Be Sure to Have these Clauses in Your Contracts

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Celebrates 21-Year Success Story

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    Colorado Homes Approved Despite being Too Close Together

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Additional Insured in Construction Defect Case

    Land a Cause of Home Building Shortage?

    Drought Dogs Developers in California's Soaring Housing Market

    2016 California Construction Law Upate

    Hawaii Federal Court Grants Insured's Motion for Remand

    Texas Condo Construction Defect Code Amended

    CGL Insurer’s Duty to Defend Insured During Pre-Suit 558 Process: Maybe?

    No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations
    Corporate Profile


    The Laurel, Indiana Expert Witness Engineer 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 Laurel'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.

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Laurel, Indiana

    Legal Implications of 3D Printing in Construction Loom

    July 10, 2018 —
    Imagine a printer in the middle of a construction site programmed with a designer’s plans and specifications to build an entire home from scratch. As concrete is fed into the printing device, a technician hits enter on her computer and a 3D printer starts fabricating the structure’s walls and roof. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aldo E. Ibarra, ENR
    ENR staff may be contacted at

    And the Winner Is . . . The Right to Repair Act!

    February 15, 2018 —
    Civil litigation attorneys often talk about “damages.” Because without damages . . . well . . . you’re out of luck. But damages come in different flavors. In construction litigation, when it comes to defective construction, there are two basic flavors: actual damages and economic damages. Actual damages include property damage and personal injury, such as a defective roof that causes water damage into the interior of the structure or collapses causing injury to someone inside the structure. In contrast, economic damages would be the cost to repair or replace the defective roof, without any resulting property damage or personal injury. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Retainage on Pennsylvania Public Contracts

    January 31, 2018 —
    Ah yes, retainage, what could represent your profit on a project and something frequently abused by owners on private and public projects alike. Fortunately, Pennsylvania law offers public works contractors some protection from retainage abuse. The Public Prompt Payment Act dictates when retainage can be withheld and when it must be released. Agencies that fail to follow the Prompt Payment Act’s retainage rules can end up owing you interest, penalty, and attorney’s fees. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC

    Court Adopts Magistrate's Recommendation to Deny Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

    June 06, 2018 —
    The district court accepted the magistrate's recommended ruling denying the insurer's motion for summary judgment on breach of contract and bad faith claims in a case involving collapse. Jang v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51880 (D. Conn. March 27, 2018). After purchase of their home, the insureds' inspector found large cracks in the foundation. Liberty denied coverage, contending that the basement wall was collapsing due to settling earth or movement. The insureds' expert later found the foundation had cracks from the oxidation of iron sulfide minerals in the foundation's concrete. The insureds sued for breach of contract, bad faith, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practice Act and the Unfair Trade Practices Act. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Is Arbitration Final and Binding?

    July 02, 2018 —
    Parties involved in a dispute may face a choice between arbitration and litigation. Previous articles in this series have discussed various factors that can influence that choice. One generally perceived advantage of arbitration is finality. But how final and binding is an arbitration award? The answer is governed primarily by the Federal Arbitration Act. The Federal Arbitration Act
      The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is a statute enacted in 1925 which provides the basic legal principles applicable to arbitration in the United States. At its core is the following principle—arbitration agreements involving interstate or foreign commerce (which includes virtually all construction contracts in the United States) must be considered:
    • Valid
    • Irrevocable; and
    • Enforceable, except on legal or equitable grounds for the revocation of a contract.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeanne M. Harrison, Smith Currie
    Ms. Harrison may be contacted at

    Pennsylvania Sues Firms to Recoup Harrisburg Incinerator Losses

    June 06, 2018 —
    The state of Pennsylvania continues to try to recover funds from professional firms involved in the city of Harrisburg’s disastrous incinerator project in the early 2000’s and has named, Buchart Horn, Inc., an engineering, architecture and planning firm based in York, Pa. as a defendant. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Barnes, ENR
    ENR staff may be contacted at

    Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?

    May 16, 2018 —
    All general contractors performing public building or public works contracts with the federal government must be familiar with the Miller Act. It is a requirement for doing business with the federal government. Pursuant to the Miller Act, a general contractor entering into a public building or public works contract with the federal government must furnish a payment bond in an amount equal to the contract price, unless the contracting officer determines that it is impractical to obtain a bond in that amount and specifies an alternative bond amount. Miller Act payment bonds guarantee payment to certain subcontractors and suppliers supplying labor and materials to contractors or subcontractors engaged in the construction. As a result, subcontractors have an avenue of relief should they not get paid for work done on the project. Specifically, subcontractors have a right to bring an action against the surety within 90-days after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material for which the claim is made. Any such action must be brought no later than one year after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material. 40 United States Code § 3133. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher M. Horton, Smith Currie
    Mr. Horton may be contacted at

    Tennessee Court of Appeals Holds Defendant Has the Burden of Offering Alternative Measure of Damages to Prove that Plaintiff’s Measure of Damages is Unreasonable

    July 18, 2018 —
    In Durkin v. MTown Construction, LLC, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee considered whether the lower court properly took judicial notice of an alternative measure of damages to the measure of damages advanced by the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant has the burden of offering evidence of alternative measures of damages if it seeks to argue that the plaintiff’s measure of the damages is unreasonable. The Court of Appeals found that the lower court erred in taking judicial notice of alternative measures of damage when the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof. The court’s holding establishes that, if the defendant does not offer evidence of alternative measures of damage, then the measure of damages introduced by the plaintiff will apply. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at