BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing expert witness Mildred Kansas mid-rise construction expert witness Mildred Kansas condominium expert witness Mildred Kansas industrial building expert witness Mildred Kansas retail construction expert witness Mildred Kansas structural steel construction expert witness Mildred Kansas multi family housing expert witness Mildred Kansas parking structure expert witness Mildred Kansas townhome construction expert witness Mildred Kansas institutional building expert witness Mildred Kansas tract home expert witness Mildred Kansas housing expert witness Mildred Kansas Medical building expert witness Mildred Kansas low-income housing expert witness Mildred Kansas high-rise construction expert witness Mildred Kansas hospital construction expert witness Mildred Kansas casino resort expert witness Mildred Kansas landscaping construction expert witness Mildred Kansas Subterranean parking expert witness Mildred Kansas office building expert witness Mildred Kansas custom home expert witness Mildred Kansas custom homes expert witness Mildred Kansas
    Mildred Kansas expert witness roofingMildred Kansas construction safety expertMildred Kansas reconstruction expert witnessMildred Kansas construction expertsMildred Kansas structural concrete expertMildred Kansas civil engineer expert witnessMildred Kansas construction defect expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer 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.


    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Mildred Kansas

    No state license for general contracting. All businesses must register with the Department of Revenue.


    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Wichita Area Builders Association
    Local # 1780
    730 N Main St
    Wichita, KS 67203

    Mildred Kansas Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Mildred Kansas Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    McPherson Area Contractors Association
    Local # 1735
    PO Box 38
    McPherson, KS 67460
    Mildred Kansas Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Salina
    Local # 1750
    2125 Crawford Place
    Salina, KS 67401

    Mildred Kansas Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Lawrence Home Builders Association
    Local # 1723
    PO Box 3490
    Lawrence, KS 66046

    Mildred Kansas Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Topeka Home Builders Association
    Local # 1765
    1505 SW Fairlawn Rd
    Topeka, KS 66604

    Mildred Kansas Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Kansas Home Builders Association
    Local # 1700
    212 SW 8th Ave Ste 201
    Topeka, KS 66603

    Mildred Kansas Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10


    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Mildred Kansas


    In Massachusetts, the Statute of Repose Applies to Consumer Protection Claims Against Building Contractors

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Excessive Corrosion Cause of Ohio State Fair Ride Accident

    Read Before You Sign: Claim Waivers in Project Documents

    Industry News: New Partner at Burdman Law Group

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds That CASPA Does Not Allow For Individual Claims Against A Property Owner’s Principals Or Shareholders

    Louisiana Politicians Struggle on Construction Bills, Hospital Redevelopment

    “You’re Out of Here!” -- CERCLA (Superfund) Federal Preemption of State Environmental Claims in State Courts

    AGC Seeks To Lead Industry in Push for Infrastructure Bill

    Structural Problems May Cause Year-Long Delay Opening New Orleans School

    New York Building Boom Spurs Corruption Probe After Death

    Montana Court Finds Duty to Defend over Construction Defect Allegation

    Location, Location, Location—Even in Construction Liens

    Assignment Endorsement Requiring Consent of All Insureds, Additional Insureds and Mortgagees Struck Down in Florida

    Ohio: Are Construction Defects Covered in Insurance Policies?

    Echoes of Shutdown in Delay of Key Building Metric

    Idaho Supreme Court Address Water Exclusion in Commercial Property Exclusion

    After Elections, Infrastructure Talk Stirs Again

    Premises Liability: Everything You Need to Know

    Couple Gets $79,000 on $10 Million Construction Defect Claim

    Protecting Your Business From Liability Claims Stemming From COVID-19 Exposure

    Insurance Agent Sued for Lapse in Coverage after House Collapses

    Contractor Allegedly Stole Construction Materials

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

    How the New Dropped Object Standard Is Changing Jobsite Safety

    Lenders and Post-Foreclosure Purchasers Have Standing to Make Construction Defect Claims for After-Discovered Conditions

    N.J. Voters Approve $116 Million in School Construction

    New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

    South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    Apartment Construction Ominously Nears 25-Year High

    Affordable Global Housing Will Cost $11 Trillion

    Committeewoman Requests Refund on Attorney Fees after Failed Legal Efforts

    Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated

    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Insuring the Indemnitor's Obligation

    New Standard Addresses Wind Turbine Construction Safety Requirements and Identifies Hazards

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-for-Delay Clause

    The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia

    Settlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National Union

    Mich. AG Says Straits of Mackinac Tunnel Deal Unconstitutional

    Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

    Crossrail Audit Blames Busted Budget and Schedule on Mismanagement

    Construction Goes Green in Orange County

    Legislative Changes that Impact Construction 2017

    Governor Brown Signs Legislation Aimed at Curbing ADA Accessibility Abuses in California

    Bridge Disaster - Italy’s Moment of Truth

    South Carolina “Your Work” Exclusion, “Get To” Costs

    California Beach Hotel to Get $185 Million Luxury Rebuild

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition

    Eleventh Circuit Reverses Attorneys’ Fee Award to Performance Bond Sureties in Dispute with Contractor arising from Claim against Subcontractor Performance Bond
    Corporate Profile

    MILDRED KANSAS EXPERT WITNESS ENGINEER
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Mildred, Kansas Expert Witness Engineer Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Mildred'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
    Mildred, Kansas

    SEC Recommendations to Protect Against Cybersecurity Threats

    March 09, 2020 —
    What Happened? The Securities and Exchange Commission's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations ("OCIE") issued a detailed report on January 27, 2020 regarding various ways for organizations to safeguard data and protect against security and data breaches. Cyber threat actors are now invading data in a more sophisticated manner than ever before, and implementation of the SEC's recommended practices are essential in order to protect from outside vulnerabilities. What is at Risk? If market participants fail to implement these recommended policies, they will become more vulnerable to external attacks and data breaches. This can weaken an organization or firm if all employees are not properly trained and informed of the increasing dangers of cybersecurity breaches. What Can You Do to Protect Yourself from a Cybersecurity Threat? 1. Governance and Risk Management. Senior leaders should make efforts to improve the cyber safety at their organization. Some of these efforts may include:
    • Devote attention to overseeing the organization's cybersecurity and resilience programs;
    • Develop a risk assessment process to identify and mitigate cybersecurity risks to the organization;
    • Adopt and implement policies and procedures regarding these risks;
    • Promptly respond and adapt to changes by updating policies and procedures when necessary; and
    • Establish communication policies and procedures to provide timely information to customers, employees, and others when needed.
    2. Access Rights and Controls. Implement updated controls to determine appropriate users for organization systems, limit access as appropriate to authorized users (including the set-up of multi-factor authentication) and monitor user access. 3. Data Loss Prevention. OCIE has recommended various important data loss prevention measures for organizations:
    • Establish a vulnerability management program;
    • Implement capabilities that can monitor network traffic and detect threats on endpoints;
    • Establish a patch management program covering all software and hardware;
    • Maintain an inventory of hardware and software assets;
    • Encrypt data and implement network segmentation;
    • Create an insider threat program to monitor any suspicious behaviors; and
    • Secure legacy systems and equipment through disposal of sensitive information from hardware and software and by reassessing vulnerability and risk assessments.
    4. Mobile Security. Establish policies and procedures for mobile device use, manage use of mobile devices through a mobile device management application, implement security measures for internal and external users, and train employees on mobile device policies and effective practices. 5. Incident Response and Resiliency. Detect and disclose material information regarding incidents in a timely manner and assess appropriateness of corrective actions taken in response to incidents. Organizations should develop a plan if an incident occurs, address applicable reporting requirements, assign staff to execute specific areas of the plan, and test and assess the plan. In the event that a data breach occurs, an organization should improve its resiliency by maintaining an inventory of core business services and prioritizing business operations based on an assessment of risks. 6. Vendor Management. Establish a vendor management program to ensure that vendors meet your organization's security requirements. Organizations should aim to understand all contract terms with vendors to ensure that all parties are in agreement regarding risk and security. Organizations should also monitor third-party vendors and ensure that the vendor continues to meet the organization's security requirements. 7. Training and Awareness. Train staff to implement cybersecurity policies of the organization. Organizations should provide cybersecurity and resiliency training and re-evaluate the effectiveness of training procedures. A Final Reminder for Organizations Organizations should strive to implement as many of the SEC's recommended protection measures as possible. Ensuring that senior members of an organization are leading the initiative in increased awareness about cybersecurity threats through training of employees will lead to greater cyber safety for the overall organization. Although prevention of all breaches cannot be guaranteed, developing data loss prevention plans to keep the organization and its core businesses safe from attack will benefit the entire organization. How We Can Help If you feel that your business falls below the SEC's recommended security measures, our firm can assist with compliance. Contact us for a free initial consultation to determine a reasonable and practical way for your business to become compliant with these guidelines. Shaia Araghi is an associate in the firm's Privacy & Data Security, and supports the team in advising clients on cyber-related matters, including compliance and prevention that can protect their day-to-day operations. For more information on how Shaia can help, contact her at shaia.araghi@ndlf.com. Jeff Dennis (CIPP/US) is the Head of the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice. Jeff works with the firm's clients on cyber-related issues, including contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. For more information on how Jeff can help, contact him at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com. 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

    U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Maritime Charters and the Specter of a New Permitting Regime

    February 24, 2020 —
    Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two important environmental cases—one that could change the approach to routine maritime charters and another that could introduce a potentially punishing permitting regime via a CWA citizen suit. Cleaning the Delaware: CITGO Asphalt Refining Company v. Frescati Shipping Company The CITGO case involves a large oil spill into the Delaware River, and who bears financial responsibility for the cleanup. CITGO chartered an oil tanker to bring Venezuelan crude oil to CITGO’s New Jersey refinery located on the Delaware River. The tanker struck a submerged and abandoned anchor within yards of the refinery, and a large and expensive oil spill resulted. In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act, both the shipper, Frescati Shipping Company, and the United States, paid for the immediate oil spill response, and CITGO was later sued for a large share of these costs based on the fact that it entered into a charter with Frescati, which obliged CITGO to provide a “safe berth.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that CITGO was liable under the principles of maritime law, meaning that CITGO was strictly liable for the spill even if no one knew that the anchor was present on the floor of the river or lurking in the waters of the Delaware River. CITGO has argued that this result is unfair and poses a threat to the maritime shipping industry if it is held to be strictly liable for this spill. It appears that this is may well be the majority rule that is applied when interpreting these routinely entered maritime charters. The Court’s decision will be immensely important to the shipping industry. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    I’m Sorry Ms. Jackson, I [Sovereign Immunity] am For Real

    June 08, 2020 —
    The Supreme Court of Florida issued its opinion in Florida Highway Patrol v. Jackson, 2020 Fla. LEXIS 108 (Fla. Jan 23, 2020), which answered the following certified question of great public importance: Does rule 9.130 [(A)(3)(C)(XI)] permit an appeal of a non-final order denying immunity if the record shows that the defendant is entitled to immunity as a matter of law but the trial court did not explicitly preclude it as a defense? The Court’s answer to this question was “no.” But this opinion stands for much more than just a negative answer to a certified question. Indeed, this opinion has significant implications upon procedural and substantive areas of construction law, which may affect agents of the state of Florida, including Construction Engineering and Inspection professionals and consultants (“CEI”). Procedurally, the Court recognizes that Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 insufficiently protects the public and governmental interests as “it leaves too great a risk that erroneous denials of operational sovereign immunity will go unreviewed until it is too late.” Id. at * 19. By extension of this risk, the Jackson Court announced that “courts should determine entitlement to sovereign immunity as early as the record permits.” Id. at * 18. In fact, on that basis, courts can address a motion for summary judgment asserting entitlement to sovereign immunity even if there are outstanding disputes as to, say, the existence of a duty of care. Id. at 17-18. Accordingly, and in an effort to remedy the risk of erroneous denials going unreviewed until it is too late, the Court amended Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 to expand appellate review of nonfinal orders denying sovereign immunity. Jackson, 2020 Fla. LEXIS 108 at * 19; In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, No. SC19-1734 (Fla. Jan. 23, 2020). The new form of Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 cements the policy mentioned above because it allows an appeal of a nonfinal order denying a motion for summary judgment due to entitlement to sovereign immunity. Meanwhile, under the old rule, the order was only appealable if the trial court order determined – as a matter of law – that a party was not entitled to sovereign immunity. As such, the new rule focuses on what was argued in the motion as opposed to what was written in the order. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greggory Jacobs, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Jacobs may be contacted at greggory.jacobs@csklegal.com

    Design-Build Contracting: Is the Shine Off the Apple?

    March 09, 2020 —
    The design-build delivery method offers many benefits to owners. Among the cited benefits are that projects are generally completed faster, at a lower cost, by allowing innovative approaches through early and continual contractor involvement in the design process. The design contractor serves as a single point of contact responsible for both the design and construction of the project. The Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) utilized the design-build procurement method on the largest project ($2 billion) of its type in the state of Washington: the Highway 99 Tunnel, which was finished almost three years late after the tunnel-boring machine (“Bertha”) broke down six years ago. The sorted tale of the SR-99 Tunnel Project was the source of many of this firm’s blog articles.[1] The State of Washington staunchly maintained that the design-build contract protected its taxpayers from covering the repair costs to the tunnel-boring machine when it broke down in 2013. Bertha did not resume tunneling for almost two years, putting on hold removal of the Alaska Way viaduct and rebuilding of the Seattle Waterfront without an elevated highway. In December 2013, the contractor for the project, Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), contended that a 110-foot long 8” steel pipe which Bertha hit caused the breakdown. That pipe had been installed for groundwater testing by WSDOT in 2002 during its preliminary engineering for the viaduct replacement project. The project’s Dispute Review Board (“DRB”) composed of three tunneling experts found that the pipe constituted a “differing site condition” for which the State was responsible to disclose to contractors. The Board, whose views were non-binding, did not opine about how much damage the undisclosed pipe cost.[2] In other words, the mere fact that a differing site condition occurred did not establish that there was a causal connection between the damages which STP was seeking (in excess of $600 million) and the differing site condition (the 8” steel pipe which WSDOT lawyers at trial derisively referred to as “nothing more than a toothpick for Bertha’s massive cutter head”). STP maintained that Bertha had made steady progress except for three days immediately after hitting the pipe. It didn’t help the contractors’ case that during the discovery phase of the two-month trial, WSDOT lawyers uncovered documents showing that the contractor’s tunnel workers encountered and logged the pipe before digging began.[3] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

    NJ Transit’s Superstorm Sandy Coverage Victory Highlights Complexities of Underwriting Property Insurance Towers

    February 24, 2020 —
    In New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 2019 WL 6109144 (N.J. App. Div. Nov. 18, 2019), New Jersey Transit (“NJT”) defeated the claim of several of its insurers that a $100 million flood sublimit applied to its Superstorm Sandy damages and recovered the full $400 million limits of its property insurance tower. The decision is a big win for the beleaguered transit agency, and for insurance professionals working with complex insurance towers, the decision highlights critical underwriting issues that can dramatically affect the amount of risk transferred by the policyholder or assumed by the insurer. In NJ Transit, NJT secured a multi-layered property insurance program providing $400 million in all-risk coverage. The first and second layers provided $50 million each, the third and fourth layers provided $175 million and $125 million, respectively, with several insurers issuing quota shares in each layer. The program contained a $100 million flood sublimit, and “flood” was defined to include a “surge” of water. The program did not contain a sublimit for damage caused by a “named windstorm,” which was defined to include “storm surge” associated with a named storm. After NJT made its Superstorm-Sandy claim, some of the third- and fourth-layer insurers advised NJT that the $100 million flood sublimit applied to bar coverage under their policies. NJT sued these excess insurers and won at the trial and appellate levels. In holding that the $100 million flood sublimit did not apply, the court applied the rule of construction that the specific definition of “named windstorm,” which included the terms “storm surge” and “wind driven water,” controlled over the policies’ more general definition of “flood.” In ascertaining the parties’ intent, the court noted that the omission of the term “storm surge” in the definition of “flood” evidenced an intention that the flood sublimit would not apply to storm surges. Based on this finding, the court rejected several arguments made by the insurers that other policy provisions evidenced the parties’ intent to apply the flood sublimit to all flood-related losses, regardless of whether the loss was caused by a storm surge. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

    New Jersey Legislation Would Bar Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause in Homeowners' Policies

    June 08, 2020 —
    A bill prohibiting the use of anti-concurrent causation clauses in homeowners' insurance policies has been introduced before the New Jersey legislature. The bill is here. Under an anti-concurrent causation clause, the policy bars coverage if two perils (i.e., wind and water damage) contribute to a loss and one peril is excluded from coverage. For example, wind damage alone may be covered, while water damage is excluded. If both wind and water contribute to the loss, regardless of the degree to which each peril contributes, the anti-concurrent causation clause would bar coverage. New Jersey S 217 states,
    An insurer authorized to transact the business of homeowners insurance in this state shall not exclude coverage in a homeowners insurance policy for loss or damage caused by a peril insured against under the terms of the policy on the grounds that the loss or damage occurred concurrently or in any sequence with a peril not insured against under the terms of the policy. Any such provision to exclude coverage shall be void and unenforceable.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Circumstances In Which Design Professional Has Construction Lien Rights

    February 24, 2020 —
    If you are a design professional (architect, landscape architect, interior designer, engineer, surveyor, or mapper) you have construction lien rights in the event you are not paid. This does not mean your lien rights are absolute so it is important to understand the circumstances which allow you to record a construction lien on a project. These circumstances are contained in Florida Statute s. 713.03: (1) Any person who performs services as architect, landscape architect, interior designer, engineer, or surveyor and mapper, subject to compliance with and the limitations imposed by this part, has a lien on the real property improved for any money that is owing to him or her for his or her services used in connection with improving the real property or for his or her services in supervising any portion of the work of improving the real property, rendered in accordance with his or her contract and with the direct contract. (2) Any architect, landscape architect, interior designer, engineer, or surveyor and mapper who has a direct contract and who in the practice of his or her profession shall perform services, by himself or herself or others, in connection with a specific parcel of real property and subject to said compliances and limitations, shall have a lien upon such real property for the money owing to him or her for his or her professional services, regardless of whether such real property is actually improved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Sometimes You Just Need to Call it a Day: Court Finds That Contractor Not Entitled to Recover Costs After Public Works Contract is Invalidated

    June 29, 2020 —
    January was a tough month in the courts for Hensel Phelps Construction Company. Hot off the heels of Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Superior Court, a case concerning the 10-year statute of limitations under Civil Code section 941, comes Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Case No. B293427 (January 28, 2020), a bid dispute case . . . The Tale of a Bid, a Bid Protest, and Two Cases A. The Bid and Bid Protest On March 15, 2015, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) issues an Invitation for Bid for the HVAC project at the Ironwood State Prison. The deadline to submit bids was April 30, 2015. Hensel Phelps Construction Co. submitted a timely bid and was determined to be the “apparent low bidder” with a bid of $88,160,000. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com