• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Holland Indiana parking structure building expert Holland Indiana housing building expert Holland Indiana landscaping construction building expert Holland Indiana hospital construction building expert Holland Indiana retail construction building expert Holland Indiana office building building expert Holland Indiana casino resort building expert Holland Indiana condominiums building expert Holland Indiana tract home building expert Holland Indiana low-income housing building expert Holland Indiana structural steel construction building expert Holland Indiana institutional building building expert Holland Indiana condominium building expert Holland Indiana Medical building building expert Holland Indiana multi family housing building expert Holland Indiana concrete tilt-up building expert Holland Indiana mid-rise construction building expert Holland Indiana Subterranean parking building expert Holland Indiana custom homes building expert Holland Indiana custom home building expert Holland Indiana townhome construction building expert Holland Indiana
    Holland Indiana construction forensic expert witnessHolland Indiana building consultant expertHolland Indiana contractor expert witnessHolland Indiana reconstruction expert witnessHolland Indiana delay claim expert witnessHolland Indiana defective construction expertHolland Indiana expert witness concrete failure
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Holland, 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).

    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Holland Indiana

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

    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Southern Indiana
    Local # 1566
    1601 Greentree Court
    Clarksville, IN 47129

    Holland Indiana Building Expert 10/ 10

    Gibson Co Chapter
    Local # 1530
    PO Box 386
    Princeton, IN 47670
    Holland Indiana Building Expert 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Dubois County
    Local # 1511
    1813 S A St
    Jasper, IN 47546

    Holland Indiana Building Expert 10/ 10

    Southwestern Indiana Builders
    Local # 1524
    2175 N Cullen Avenue
    Evansville, IN 47715

    Holland Indiana Building Expert 10/ 10

    Vincennes Area Chapter
    Local # 1563
    PO Box 531
    Vincennes, IN 47591
    Holland Indiana Building Expert 10/ 10

    River Valley Chapter of National Associated Home Builders
    Local # 1576
    PO Box 365
    Hanover, IN 47243
    Holland Indiana Building Expert 10/ 10

    Lawrence County Chapter
    Local # 1535
    201 Main Street c/o Hoosier Door
    Oolitic, IN 47451
    Holland Indiana Building Expert 10/ 10

    Building Expert News and Information
    For Holland Indiana

    Stuck in Seattle: The Aggravating Adventures of a Gigantic Tunnel Drill

    At $350 Million, Beverly Hillbillies Mansion Is Most Expensive in U.S.

    Common Flood Insurance Myths and how Agents can Debunk Them

    Ohio Condo Owners Sue Builder, Alleging Construction Defects

    Following Mishaps, D.C. Metro Presses on With Repairs

    Coverage Exists for Landlord as Additional Insured

    Denver Condo Development Increasing, with Caution

    Condo Owners Suing Bank for Failing to Disclose Defects

    Insurer's Failure to Settle Does Not Justify Multiple Damages under Unfair Claims Settlement Law

    Seeking the Urban Lifestyle in the Suburbs

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

    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

    NYC’s First Five-Star Hotel in Decade Seen at One57 Tower

    New York Building Boom Spurs Corruption Probe After Death

    Is Your Design Professional Construction Contract too Friendly? (Law Note)

    Construction Defect Journal Seeks Article Submissions Regarding SB800 and Other Builders Right to Repair Laws

    Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<

    Does Your 998 Offer to Compromise Include Attorneys’ Fees and Costs?

    Attorney Risks Disqualification If After Receiving Presumptively Privileged Communication Fails to Notify Privilege Holder and Uses Document Pending Privilege Determination by Court

    Facebook Posts “Not Relevant” Rules Florida Appeals Court

    Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

    July 1, 2015 Statutory Changes Affecting Virginia Contractors and Subcontractors

    Condo Building Increasing in Washington D.C.

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    Is Solar the Next Focus of Construction Defect Suits?

    Increases in U.S. Office Rents Led by San Jose and Dallas

    Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    Houses Can Still Make Cents: Illinois’ Implied Warranty of Habitability

    Decaying U.S. Roads Attract Funds From KKR to DoubleLine

    Foundation Arbitration Doesn’t Preclude Suing Over Cracks

    Contractors Board May Discipline Over Workers’ Comp Reporting

    Surety Bond Now a Valid Performance Guarantee for NC Developers (guest post)

    New LG Headquarters Project Challenged because of Height

    Alabama Court Determines No Coverage For Insured's Faulty Workmanship

    Gilbert’s Plan for Downtown Detroit Has No Room for Jail

    Mitsui Fudosan Said to Consider Rebuilding Tilted Apartments

    Sales Pickup Shows Healing U.S. Real Estate Market

    U.S. Building Permits Soared to Their Highest Level in Nearly Eight Years

    No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations

    First Quarter Gains in Housing Affordability

    Update Relating to SB891 and Bond Claim Waivers

    New Jersey Traffic Circle to be Eliminated after 12 Years of Discussion

    Commonwealth Court Holds That Award of Attorney's Fees and Penalties is Mandatory Under the Procurement Code Upon a Finding of Bad Faith

    Alleged Defective Water Pump Leads to 900K in Damages

    Legal Fallout Begins Over Delayed Edmonton Bridges

    Suing a Local Government in Land Use Cases – Part 1 – Substantive Due Process

    HOA Coalition Statement on Construction-Defects Transparency Legislation

    5 Impressive Construction Projects in North Carolina

    Google, Environmentalists and University Push Methane-Leak Detection
    Corporate Profile


    The Holland, Indiana 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 Holland'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
    Holland, Indiana

    Number of Occurrences Is On the Agenda at This Year's ICLC Seminar

    February 05, 2015 —
    This year's Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee's CLE Seminar will be conducted in Tucson, Arizona, from March 4-7, 2015. Each year, the conference offers informative, cutting-edge sessions on a variety of insurance-related topics. Participants from across the country with varying perspectives on insurance coverage, including lawyers, judges, risk managers, and insurance professionals, will be attendance. The seminar's brochure is attached here. "Number of Occurrences" will be the topic my panel presents on March 7. We will be honored to have on our panel Alaska Supreme Court Justice Peter Maassen, my old skiing and running buddy from my Alaska days. Justice Maassen's opinion in United Servs. Auto. Ass'n. v. Neary, 307 P.3d 907 (Alaska 2013) was the genesis for our topic. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

    September 01, 2011 —

    This is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog.  Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.

    In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.

    The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at

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

    Michigan Supreme Court Concludes No Statute of Repose on Breach of Contract

    July 19, 2011 —

    Judge Marilyn Kelly of the Michigan Supreme Court has remanded the case of Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Constr. Inc. (Mich., 2011) to the Court of Appeals, after determining that the court had improperly applied the statute of repose. She reversed their judgment, pending a new trial.

    Ahrens Construction was a subcontractor, hired by Miller-Davis to build and install a natatorium room at a YMCA camp in Kalamazoo, Michigan. After its installation, the YMCA discovered a severe condensation problem, causing moisture to “rain” from the roof. The architect, testifying for Miller-Davis, alleged that the problems were due to improper installation by Ahrens. Ahrens claimed that the condensation problem was due to a design error.

    When the roof was removed and reconstructed, the moisture problem ended. Ahrens argued that the alleged defects were caused by the removal. Further, in trial Ahrens raised the issue of the statute of repose. The court found in favor of Miller-Davis and did not address the statute of repose.

    The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, determining that the statute of repose had barred the suit. This rendered the other issues moot.

    The Michigan Supreme concluded that the issue at hand was “a suit for breach of contract,” and that the Michigan statute of repose is limited to tort actions. They remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to address the issues that had been mooted by the application of the statute of repose.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Fla. Researchers Probe 'Mother of All Sinkholes'

    August 24, 2017 —
    It will take months to complete remediation of the largest sinkhole in Pasco County, Fla.’s recent history, county officials say. Seven houses have been lost or condemned since the sinkhole was reported at 7:21 a.m. on July 14. That day, two houses collapsed into the hole, which initially measured 225 ft long and 50 ft deep. As the cavity’s dimensions grew to between 260 ft and 180 ft, the county red-tagged five additional houses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Thomas F. Armistead, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

    August 11, 2011 —

    In a brief decision analyzing Oregon law, the Ninth Circuit determined that once an insurer breaches its duty to defend, it must indemnify. See Desrosiers v. Hudson Speciality Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12591 (9th CIr. June 21, 2011).

    The victim secured a judgment against the insured after he was beaten by another patron outside the insured's bar. Hudson Speciality Insurance refused to defend the insured, claiming the injury arose from an assault and battery, which excluded coverage.

    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

    Oregon Court of Appeals Rules That Negligent Construction (Construction Defect) Claims Are Subject to a Two-Year Statute of Limitations

    October 20, 2016 —
    Statutes of limitations are distinct from statutes of repose. There is a lot of confusion between the two. Generally, a statute of limitations is a law which sets the maximum period of time which one can wait before filing a lawsuit, depending on the type of case or claim. The periods vary by state and by type of claim. Most states also employ a “discovery rule,” which provides that the statute of limitations does not “accrue” until such time as the plaintiff knew or should have reasonably known that the injury or property damage has occurred. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at

    Panel Declares Colorado Construction Defect Laws Reason for Lack of Multifamily Developments

    January 22, 2014 —
    Dennis Huspeni writing for the Denver Business Journal provided reactions from panelists at a ULI Colorado event on January 9th at the Embassy Suites Denver – Downtown/Convention Center hotel regarding a report on “Emerging Trends in Real Estate.” According to Huspeni’s article, panelists discussed “the lack of for-sale multifamily development and attributed it to Colorado’s construction defect laws.” John Beeble, chairman and CEO of Saunders Construction, one of the panelists, said that Saunders does not build condos because of Denver’s construction defect laws: “We’ve been in business for 42 years and never been sued for construction defects,” Beeble said, according to the Denver Business Journal. “But the odds are close to 100 percent that we’d be in court defending ourselves if we did condos.” Jeff Hawks, principal at ARA Colorado, claimed, “Colorado has some of the worst construction defect laws in the country. It’s stupid to try and build a condo development until that changes,” as reported by the Denver Business Journal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

    November 21, 2017 —
    Originally published by CDJ on September 7, 2017 Colorado’s new construction defect law officially takes effect this month. Although HB 17-1279 was passed in May, the statutory text provides that it only applies “with respect to events and circumstances occurring on or after September 1, 2017.” With that date now upon us, practitioners should be mindful of the law’s new requirements. The law applies to any lawsuit wherein a homeowner association files a construction defect action on behalf of two or more of its members. “Construction defect action” is defined broadly to include any claims against construction professionals relating to deficiencies in design or construction of real property. Before an association may commence such an action, its board must follow several steps. First, the board must deliver notice of the potential construction defect action to all homeowners and the affected construction professionals at their last known addresses. This requirement does not apply to construction professionals identified after the notice has been mailed, or to construction professionals joined in a previously-approved lawsuit. The notice must include a description of the alleged construction defects with reasonable specificity, the relief sought, a good-faith estimate of the benefits and risks involved, and a list of mandatory disclosures concerning assessments, attorney fees, and the marketability of units affected by construction defects. The notice must also call a meeting of all homeowners. The notice should be sent to the construction professionals at least five days before the homeowners. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of