• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Bolingbrook Illinois high-rise construction building expert Bolingbrook Illinois housing building expert Bolingbrook Illinois landscaping construction building expert Bolingbrook Illinois production housing building expert Bolingbrook Illinois hospital construction building expert Bolingbrook Illinois condominium building expert Bolingbrook Illinois institutional building building expert Bolingbrook Illinois low-income housing building expert Bolingbrook Illinois parking structure building expert Bolingbrook Illinois concrete tilt-up building expert Bolingbrook Illinois tract home building expert Bolingbrook Illinois multi family housing building expert Bolingbrook Illinois mid-rise construction building expert Bolingbrook Illinois structural steel construction building expert Bolingbrook Illinois custom homes building expert Bolingbrook Illinois Subterranean parking building expert Bolingbrook Illinois townhome construction building expert Bolingbrook Illinois casino resort building expert Bolingbrook Illinois condominiums building expert Bolingbrook Illinois custom home building expert Bolingbrook Illinois office building building expert Bolingbrook Illinois
    Bolingbrook Illinois roofing and waterproofing expert witnessBolingbrook Illinois eifs expert witnessBolingbrook Illinois expert witness structural engineerBolingbrook Illinois consulting engineersBolingbrook Illinois construction expert testimonyBolingbrook Illinois consulting architect expert witnessBolingbrook Illinois fenestration expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Bolingbrook, 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.

    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Bolingbrook Illinois

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

    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Northern Illinois Home Builders Association Inc
    Local # 1434
    3695 Darlene Ct Ste 102
    Aurora, IL 60504

    Bolingbrook Illinois Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Bolingbrook Illinois Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Bolingbrook Illinois Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Bolingbrook Illinois Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Bolingbrook Illinois Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Bolingbrook Illinois Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Bolingbrook Illinois Building Expert 10/ 10

    Building Expert News and Information
    For Bolingbrook Illinois

    U.S. Homeownership Rate Rises for First Time in Two Years

    New York Bridge to Be Largest Infrastructure Project in North America

    Exculpatory Provisions in Business Contracts

    No Friday Night Lights at $60 Million Texas Stadium: Muni Credit

    Norristown, PA to Stop Paying Repair Costs for Defect-Ridden Condo

    Brazil World Cup Soccer Crisis Deepens With Eighth Worker Death

    Does Your U.S. Company Pull Data From European Citizens? Fall In Line With GDPR by May 2018 or Suffer Substantial Fines

    Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

    Supreme Court Rejects “Wholly Groundless” Exception to Question of Arbitrability

    The Rubber Hits the Ramp: A Maryland Personal Injury Case

    Home-Sales Fall in 2014 Has U.S. Waiting for 2015: Economy

    Why 8 Out of 9 Californians Don't Buy Earthquake Insurance

    Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits

    Condo Developers Buy in Washington despite Construction Defect Litigation

    An Era of Legends

    Don MacGregor To Speak at 2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    What Does It Mean When a House Sells for $50 Million?

    Sept. 11 Victims Rejected by U.S. High Court on Lawsuit

    Trial Date Discussed for Las Vegas HOA Takeover Case

    Lumber Liquidators’ Home-Testing Methods Get EPA Scrutiny

    Other Colorado Cities Looking to Mirror Lakewood’s Construction Defect Ordinance

    Triggering Duty to Advance Costs Same Standard as Duty to Defend

    White House Plan Would Break Up Corps Civil-Works Functions

    Not So Universal Design Fails (guest post)

    Colorado Senate Revives Construction Defects Reform Bill

    Travelers v. Larimer County and the Concept of Covered Cause of Loss

    Broker for Homeowners Policy Has No Duty to Advise Insureds on Excess Flood Coverage

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    Crumbling Roadways Add Costs to Economy, White House Says

    Unqualified Threat to Picket a Neutral is Unfair Labor Practice

    Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims

    Toward Increased Citizen Engagement in Urban Planning

    Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts

    Preserving your Rights to Secure Payment on Construction Projects (with Examples)

    Denial of Claim for Concealment or Fraud Reversed by Sixth Circuit

    Construction Resumes after Defects

    Construction Project Bankruptcy Law

    Insurer Must Pay To Defend Product Defect Claims From Date Of Product Installation

    Bar Against Forum Selection Clauses in Construction Contracts Extended to Design Professionals

    Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson

    Home-Building Climate Warms in U.S. as Weather Funk Lifts

    WSHB Ranks No.10 in Law360’s Best of Law Firms for Women

    Oregon Construction Firm Sued for Construction Defects

    NYC Building Explosion Kills Two After Neighbor Reports Gas Leak

    Rio de Janeiro's Bursting Real-Estate Bubble

    Hundreds of Snakes Discovered in Santa Ana Home

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

    Drought Dogs Developers in California's Soaring Housing Market

    In a Win for Property Owners California Court Expands and Clarifies Privette Doctrine

    House of the Week: Spanish Dream Home on California's Riviera
    Corporate Profile


    The Bolingbrook, Illinois Building Expert 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. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Bolingbrook'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.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Bolingbrook, Illinois

    Insurer Must Defend Construction Defect Claims

    October 07, 2016 —
    The federal district court found that under New York law, the insurer had a duty to defend construction defect claims where damage to property other than the insured's work product was possible. Am.Home Assur. Co. v. Allan Window Techs., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101118 (S.D. N. Y. Aug 2, 2016). Kent Avenue Property ("Kent") sued Allan Window Technologies, Ltd. ("Allan"), alleging that Allan entered a written contract for the design, manufacture, assembly and installation of the window wall systems for a residential condominium building. Pursuant to the contract, Allan agreed to correct all work rejected as defective and to bear all costs for correcting the work. According to the complaint, the window wall systems and vent windows installed by Allan were not water-tight or air-tight, and therefore did not meet the air and water penetration requirements of the contract.The contract had an indemnification provision under which Allan agreed to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Kent from all losses, claims, lawsuits, etc. arising out of damage or injury to property at the project site. Kent sued for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of warranty, and (3) contractual indemnity. American Home agreed to defend Allan under a full reservation of rights. American Home then sued for a declaratory judgment to establish it had no duty to defend or indemnify. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Tokyo Tackles Flood Control as Typhoons Swamp Subways

    August 20, 2014 —
    Below the condos and boutiques of Tokyo’s upscale Minato ward -- which includes Roppongi Hills, home to Goldman Sachs Group’s Japan headquarters -- a boring machine has carved out the city’s newest defense against floods. “There are many buildings, there’s a freeway,” said Satoshi Yamamoto, who’s directing the Tokyo government’s 24.5 billion yen ($240 million) project to build a giant subterranean reservoir -- the city’s second of three -- to handle flood waters from the Furukawa river that winds through the area. “We decided the best approach was to go underground.” When it’s completed in 2016, the 3.3-kilometer (2-mile) reservoir will be able to handle 135,000 cubic meters of water, enough to fill 54 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Tokyo is becoming increasingly reliant on this solution as more typhoons hit the country each year, a trend that Yamamoto said may be linked to global warming. The flooding is exacerbated by the city’s sprawling concrete footprint that keeps rainwater from seeping safely into the ground. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jacob Adelman, Bloomberg
    Mr. Adelman may be contacted at

    Unions Win Prevailing Wage Challenge Brought By Charter Cities: Next Stop The Supreme Court?

    April 06, 2016 —
    In City Of El Centro v. David Lanier (State Building And Construction Trades Council Of California, AFL-CIO), the 4th appellate district upheld by a 2-1 majority the constitutionality of Labor Code section 1782, which prohibits a charter city from receiving or using state funding or financial assistance for a public construction project if the city has a charter provision or ordinance that authorizes a contractor to not comply with the state prevailing wage laws. As we wrote on this topic back in 2012 (See alert here), charter cities are governed by a municipal constitution and may make and enforce its own ordinances and regulations with respect to municipal affairs (i.e., the ‘home rule’ doctrine), as opposed to general law cities, which must comply with the state laws such as the Public Wage Rate Act (requiring municipalities to pay prevailing wages). The California Supreme Court previously held in State Building and Construction Trade Council of California, AFL-CIO v. City of Vista that the ‘home rule’ rule permits charter cities not to pay prevailing wages to its contract workers on locally funded public works because such determination is a municipal affair and not a statewide concern. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Sarah A. Marsey, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at Ms. Marsey may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)

    June 10, 2011 —

    In Goodville Mut. Cas. Co. v. Baldo, No. 09-338 (D. Del. June 2, 2011), claimants condominium association and unit owners sued project developer Rehoboth and general contractor Capano seeking damages because of moisture penetration property damage to common elements and individual units resulting from construction defects. Rehoboth and Capano filed a third party complaint against insured property manager Baldo alleging that, if Rehoboth and Capano were liable to claimants, Baldo was also liable because of Baldo’s failure to properly manage, maintain, and repair the property

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Nonprofit Starts Anti-Scaffold Law Video Series

    February 10, 2014 —
    According to readMedia, The Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York (LRANY) has released “‘Victims of the Scaffold Law’ video series” that highlights “the impact of New York's ‘Scaffold Law’ on small businesses, taxpayers, and, specifically New York's Minority and Woman Owned Business Enterprises.” The New York Scaffold Law “imposes total liability on contractors and property owners in lawsuits for gravity-related construction accidents, regardless of any contributing negligence by the worker,” reports readMedia. Furthermore, the law “is responsible for over half of the largest settlements in the state and dramatically increases the cost of liability insurance and construction in New York.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

    November 18, 2011 —

    The contractor was covered as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policy even though the parties had never actually signed an agreement to add the contractor to the policy. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20081 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2011).

    The policies held by Bellevue Master, the general contractor, required it to be an additional insured under any subcontractor’s liability policy. Northwest Tower Crane Services was a subcontractor. Bellevue Master LLC, faxed a message that Northwest could continue to be a subcontractor on the project if it complied with Bellevue Master’s insurance requirements. Northwest contacted its insurance broker and requested an insurance certificate be issued to Bellevue Master so that it would be an additional insured under Northwest’s policy.

    Read the full story…

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

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Right to Repair Act (Civ.C §895 et seq.) Applies and is the Exclusive Remedy for a Homeowner Alleging Construction Defects

    February 07, 2018 —
    McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (01.18.18) ____ Cal.4th _____ (2018 WL 456728) The California Supreme Court confirmed that the Right to Repair Act (CA Civil Code § 895, et seq. and often referred to by its legislative nomenclature as “SB800”) applies broadly to any action by a residential owner seeking recovery of damages for construction defects, regardless of whether such defects caused property damages or only economic losses. This includes the right in the Act of the builder to attempt repairs prior to the owner filing a lawsuit. Background Homeowners sued builder for construction defects. Included in their causes of action was a cause of action for violation of the Right To Repair Act. The Act requires that before filing litigation, a homeowner must give the builder notice and engage in a nonadversarial prelitigation process which gives the builder a right to repair the defects. The builder asked the court to stay the homeowners’ action so the prelitigaiton process could be undertaken. Rather than give the builder the repair right, the homeowners dismissed the particular cause of action from their case, leaving only other so-called common law and warranty causes of action. The common law claims sought recovery for property damage caused by the defects. The builder nonetheless asked to the Court to stay the action so it could exercise its right to repair. The trial court, relying on Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, denied builder’s request to stay the action. The Liberty Mutual Court concluded that certain common law construction defect claims fell outside the purview of the Act. Builder appealed. The Court of Appeal disagreed with Liberty Mutual, so did not follow it, granted the builder’s request for a stay, and directed that the homeowners afford the builder the right to repair the claimed defects as provided under the Act. The California Supreme Court affirmed, disapproving Liberty Mutual and the subsequent cases relying on it. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Wallace, Smith Currie
    Mr. Wallace may be contacted at

    The Dog Ate My Exclusion! – Georgia Federal Court: No Reformation to Add Pollution Exclusion

    September 28, 2017 —
    While schoolchildren know that the classic “the dog ate my homework” excuse doesn’t work, insurance companies are willing to try a variation of that excuse. Ace American Insurance Company (Ace), sold a property policy (the Policy) to Exide Technologies, Inc. (Exide). Exide sought coverage under the Policy for acid damage at its former battery factory. Ace denied coverage, citing to the pollution exclusion. The only problem? The Policy contained no pollution exclusion! Exide had procured policies from other insurers for several years prior to the inception of the Policy, all of which contained pollution exclusions. Exide instructed Marsh USA Inc. (Marsh), its broker, to procure insurance “on the same or better terms and conditions.” The resulting policy contained no pollution exclusion, and Exide sought coverage under the Policy for pollution-related losses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Philip M. Brown-Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Brown-Wilusz may be contacted at