BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction expert witness Ashton Illinois multi family housing expert witness Ashton Illinois production housing expert witness Ashton Illinois mid-rise construction expert witness Ashton Illinois concrete tilt-up expert witness Ashton Illinois tract home expert witness Ashton Illinois housing expert witness Ashton Illinois hospital construction expert witness Ashton Illinois retail construction expert witness Ashton Illinois low-income housing expert witness Ashton Illinois structural steel construction expert witness Ashton Illinois institutional building expert witness Ashton Illinois townhome construction expert witness Ashton Illinois parking structure expert witness Ashton Illinois custom home expert witness Ashton Illinois custom homes expert witness Ashton Illinois office building expert witness Ashton Illinois casino resort expert witness Ashton Illinois condominiums expert witness Ashton Illinois Medical building expert witness Ashton Illinois high-rise construction expert witness Ashton Illinois industrial building expert witness Ashton Illinois
    Ashton Illinois expert witness roofingAshton Illinois architectural engineering expert witnessAshton Illinois construction expert witnessAshton Illinois OSHA expert witness constructionAshton Illinois contractor expert witnessAshton Illinois expert witness windowsAshton Illinois consulting engineers
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Ashton, 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 Ashton Illinois

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


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Greater Fox Valley
    Local # 1431
    PO Box 1146
    Saint Charles, IL 60174

    Ashton Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Ashton Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Ashton Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    SouthWest Suburban Home Builders Association
    Local # 1432
    10767 W 163rd Pl
    Orland Park, IL 60467

    Ashton Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Ashton Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Ashton Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Ashton Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Ashton Illinois


    Snell & Wilmer’s San Diego Office Ranked #1 “Best Place to Work” by the San Diego Business Journal

    Subcontractor’s Claim against City Barred by City’s Compliance with Georgia Payment Bond Statute

    Policy Reformed to Add New Building Owner as Additional Insured

    Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL

    Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations

    School Board Sues Multiple Firms over Site Excavation Problem

    No Coverage for Sink Hole Loss

    Even Where Fraud and Contract Mix, Be Careful With Timing

    Ambiguous Application Questions Preclude Summary Judgment on Rescission Claim

    More thoughts on Virginia Mechanic’s Liens

    “Genuine” Issue of “Material” Fact and Summary Judgments

    Testing Your Nail Knowledge

    Bona Fide Dispute Defeats Violation of Prompt Payment Act

    Motion to Strike Insureds' Experts Denied, Claims under Fair Claims Settlement Act Survives Summary Judgment

    Unintended Consequences of New Building Products and Services

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 43 White and Williams Lawyers

    Court Slams the Privette Door on Independent Contractor’s Bodily Injury Claim

    Florida Insurance Legislation Alert - Part I

    Groundbreaking on New Boulder Neighborhood

    Feds to Repair Damage From Halted Border Wall Work in Texas, California

    Mandatory Energy Benchmarking is On Its Way

    Licensing Mistakes That Can Continue to Haunt You

    Goldman Veteran Said to Buy Mortgages After Big Short

    Appraisal May Include Cause of Loss Issues

    When Business is Personal: Negligent and Intentional Interference Claims

    Minnesota Senate Office Building Called Unconstitutional

    N.J. Governor Signs Bill Expanding P3s

    Don’t Ignore the Dispute Resolution Provisions in Your Construction Contract

    Home Building Likely to Stick to Slow Pace

    Bremer Whyte Congratulates Nicole Nuzzo on OCBA Professionalism and Ethics Committee Appointment

    Greg Katz Quoted in Insurance Journal Article About How Big Data & AI Are Driving Up Verdicts, Settlements

    Legal Implications of 3D Printing in Construction Loom

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Apparently, It’s Not Always Who You Know”

    GE to Repay $87 Million for Scaled-Back Headquarters Plan

    Asserting Non-Disclosure Claim Involving Residential Real Property and Whether Facts Are “Readily Observable”

    Appraisal Ordered After Carrier Finds Loss Even if Cause Disputed

    The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia

    Potential Pitfalls Under the Contract Disputes Act for Federal Government Contractors

    Shaken? Stirred? A Primer on License Bond Claims in California

    Does the UCC Apply to the Contract for the Sale of Goods and Services

    Utility Contractor Held Responsible for Damaged Underground Electrical Line

    Portions of Policyholder's Expert's Opinions Excluded

    How A Contractor Saved The Day On A Troubled Florida Condo Project

    PSA: Virginia Repeals Its Permanent COVID-19 Safety Standard

    Sioux City Building Owners Sue Architect over Renovation Costs

    Several Lewis Brisbois Partners Recognized by Sacramento Magazine in List of Top Lawyers

    Pennsylvania Superior Court Tightens Requirements for Co-Worker Affidavits in Asbestos Cases

    Selected Environmental Actions Posted on the Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulator Actions

    4 Ways to Mitigate Construction Disputes

    Failure to Timely File Suit in Federal Court for Flood Loss is Fatal
    Corporate Profile

    ASHTON ILLINOIS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Ashton, Illinois Construction Expert Witness Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Ashton, Illinois

    PSA: Be Sure to Document (Even When Time is Short)

    April 14, 2026 —
    Written change orders are a big deal. Almost all construction contracts (at least the well drafted ones) require written contracts. Written change orders are even important enough that Virginia law requires these provisions in residential construction contracts. Why are they so important? Because they are a “mini-contract” of sorts. They set the expectations, price, time, and work to be performed; work that was not included in the original price or scope for the project. Without this in writing, there will be no record of what the parties agreed to do. Does this sound familiar? Sound like its own contract? It should. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Finds Coverage Under Ensuing Loss Provisions

    September 29, 2026 —
    Reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the insurer, the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that genuine issues of material fact existed on whether ensuing losses as defined in the policy were covered. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Ropicky, 2026 Wisc. LEXIS 302 (Wis. July 7, 2026). The insured suffered damage during a storm on May 11, 2018, when rainwater poured into the home. The insureds gave notice to their insurer, Cincinnati. Upon inspection, Cincinnati determined that water intrusion resulted from multiple construction defects in the home. In the front of the home, water entered through a gap in the stone veneer. The inspector also concluded that the damage from rainwater was not just from the May 11, 2018, storm, but damage had occurred from prior storm events. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    How AI Turns Construction Documents Into Procurement Intelligence

    May 05, 2026 —
    MEP equipment accounts for up to 40% of costs on data center or hospital projects, has lead times ranging from 20 weeks to over a year, and has historically been the most underserved area in construction software. In this episode, I speak with Victor Muchiri from BuildVision about what it actually takes to make AI useful in construction procurement, not as a pilot, but in production. We dig into why you cannot simply upload a set of construction drawings to ChatGPT and trust the output. Construction documents are complex, cross-referenced, and consequential. Without deep domain context, such as manufacturer ontologies, equipment taxonomies, and engineering expertise, AI produces plausible results, not reliable ones. BuildVision’s approach is to act as a harness around AI models, wrapping them in construction-specific knowledge so the output can be trusted for real procurement decisions. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Can Anything Supersede Excel in AEC?

    April 27, 2026 —
    If there’s one piece of software that dominates the business world across industries, it’s Microsoft Excel. Can AI finally dethrone the mighty spreadsheet? Memorable Spreadsheet Moments Everyone has memorable spreadsheet moments. I have a few. For example, my then-architecture firm was involved in more than a dozen housing developments abroad. I developed an Excel workbook that took the required number of households as input and automatically generated a breakdown of buildings and their apartment types for AutoCAD. This was urban planning and architectural design done with a spreadsheet. I also developed business software using Excel for project portfolio management. The prototype was later scaled into a commercial SaaS that is now used globally. Another memorable moment was when a property owner told me their Excel file grew so large that it ran out of rows and columns. That must have been before 2007, when the maximum number of columns on a sheet was still just 256 and the maximum number of rows was 65,536. The current limits are 1,048,576 rows and 16,384 columns, which I hope no one will exceed. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Vacant Building Negates Coverage for Broken Pipe

    September 01, 2026 —
    The Michigan Court of Appeals found the insured was not covered for water damage because the commercial space was left vacant. Cherry Hill Recreation Center, Inc. v. Conifer Ins Co., 2026 Mich, App. LEXIS 5099 (Mich Ct. App. June 18, 2026). Alan Abbas purchased a bowling alley. Due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and executive orders issued by the governor, Abbas was unable to operate the bowling center for several months. During the winter, Abbas allowed the thermostat to drop significantly, with the building expected to be around 43 degrees Fahrenheit. He later admitted the sprinkler system’s pipes were not protected against freezing. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    What Is the Independent Tort Doctrine? New Case Explains…

    August 24, 2026 —
    Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeals in Atout v. HHM Land Trust Dated October 29, 2013, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D1569a (Fla. 6th DCA 2026) recently included an extensive discussion on Florida’s independent tort doctrine. The independent tort doctrine is an important legal doctrine, particularly when parties are in contractual privity. This doctrine stands for the proposition that tort claims must be independent of any breach of contract. See Atout, supra. The Sixth District’s extensive discussion analyzed the indicators to determine this “independence,” which may arise from the source of the duty, the asserted conduct, the damages sought, or even public policy: Unlike claims that rely on contractual relationships, an “independent” tort is often characterized by a duty imposed by law rather than by agreement. As to this consideration, United States District Court Judge Steven Merryday has explained that the independent tort doctrine honors the same divide as the economic loss rule, but rather than looking at the nature of the loss, it focuses on the source of the duty allegedly breached. “If a contract imposes a duty, and the defendant breaches that duty, the plaintiff must sue for breach of contract. If society imposes the duty, the plaintiff must sue in tort.” Following this reasoning, courts should consider whether the alleged breach of a duty in tort coincides or overlaps with a duty imposed by a contract. If the duty at issue is within the scope of a contract, and the relationship of the parties that led to the creation of that duty stems from a contract, then that duty’s source is from contract and any alleged tort claims based on a breach of those duties may not be “independent.” Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit

    April 20, 2026 —
    In Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants. Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

    Federal Court Strikes Down New York’s Climate Superfund Act: What It Means for the “Polluter Pays” Movement

    September 28, 2026 —
    A federal judge in the Northern District of New York has struck down New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act, ruling that the “polluter pays” climate law is preempted by federal law and “simply beyond the limits of state law.” The court concluded that the Clean Air Act (CAA) does not authorize New York’s compensation scheme, which calculates liability based on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions attributable to worldwide fossil fuel extraction and refining. It separately held that any cost-recovery demand against a foreign producer would be preempted under the constitutional foreign affairs doctrine, which limits state intrusion into matters committed predominantly to the federal government. The court directed the parties to file a status report by September 14, leaving the form of further relief unresolved. In practical terms, the court has decided that the Act is preempted and cannot be enforced but has not yet determined the precise terms of its final order, including whether to formally enjoin its enforcement. The decision in West Virginia v. James, Case No. 1:25-cv-00168 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2026), issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Brenda K. Sannes, who was appointed by President Obama, marks the first judicial invalidation of a state climate superfund statute and carries significant implications for the climate superfund landscape and the three remaining lawsuits challenging these laws. Reprinted courtesy of Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury, Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury and Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...