• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Holland Indiana housing building expert Holland Indiana Medical building building expert Holland Indiana condominiums building expert Holland Indiana mid-rise construction building expert Holland Indiana concrete tilt-up building expert Holland Indiana production housing building expert Holland Indiana tract home building expert Holland Indiana institutional building building expert Holland Indiana landscaping construction building expert Holland Indiana office building building expert Holland Indiana custom homes building expert Holland Indiana condominium building expert Holland Indiana multi family housing building expert Holland Indiana townhome construction building expert Holland Indiana custom home building expert Holland Indiana Subterranean parking building expert Holland Indiana low-income housing building expert Holland Indiana high-rise construction building expert Holland Indiana casino resort building expert Holland Indiana hospital construction building expert Holland Indiana parking structure building expert Holland Indiana
    Holland Indiana construction defect expert witnessHolland Indiana building code expert witnessHolland Indiana architectural expert witnessHolland Indiana construction expertsHolland Indiana roofing construction expertHolland Indiana architecture expert witnessHolland Indiana ada design expert witness
    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

    Haight Expands California Reach – Opens Office in Sacramento

    Workers on Big California Bridge Tackle Oil Wells, Seismic Issues

    Interior Designer Licensure

    Top 10 Lessons Learned from a Construction Attorney

    Falling Tree Causing Three Injuries/Deaths Is One Occurrence

    Acquisition, Development, and Construction Lending Conditions Ease

    Court of Federal Claims: Upstream Hurricane Harvey Case Will Proceed to Trial

    New Jersey Supreme Court Ruled Condo Association Can’t Reset Clock on Construction Defect Claim

    The Importance of the Subcontractor Exception to the “Your Work” Exclusion

    William Lyon to Acquire RSI Communities

    San Francisco Museum Nears $610 Million Fundraising Goal

    Colorado Abandons the “Completed and Accepted Rule” in Favor of the “Foreseeability Rule” in Determining a Contractor’s Duty to a Third Party After Work Has Been Completed

    Connecticut Supreme Court to Review Several Issues in Asbestos Coverage Case

    Commerce City Enacts Reform to Increase For-Sale Multifamily Housing

    MetLife Takes Majority Stake in New San Francisco Office Tower

    House Committee Kills Colorado's 2015 Attainable Housing Bill

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    Real-Estate Pros Fight NYC Tax on Wealthy Absentee Owners

    Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    Court Orders City to Pay for Sewer Backups

    Condominium Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect

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

    No Collapse Coverage Where Policy's Collapse Provisions Deleted

    Labor Code § 2708 Presumption of Employer Negligence is Not Applicable Against Homeowners Who Hired Unlicensed Painting Company

    Understanding Indiana’s New Home Construction Warranty Act

    Million-Dollar U.S. Housing Loans Surge to Record Level

    Design Professional Liens: A Blueprint

    Ohio Condo Owners Sue Builder, Alleging Construction Defects

    Louisiana District Court Declines to Apply Total Pollution Exclusion

    Two Texas Cities Top San Francisco for Property Investors

    Eleventh Circuit Upholds Coverage for Environmental Damage from Sewage, Concluding It is Not a “Pollutant”

    Virginia Decision Emphasizes Importance of Naming All Necessary Parties

    Harmon Towers Demolition Still Uncertain

    Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    5 Ways Equipment Financing is Empowering Small Construction Businesses

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    Canada Cooler Housing Market Boosts Poloz’s Soft Landing

    Senate Bill 15-091 Passes Out of the Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee

    7 Sustainability Ideas for Modular Classrooms in the Education Industry (guest post)

    Los Angeles Considering Census of Seismically Unstable Buildings

    GAO Sustains Unsupported Past Performance Evaluation and Unequal Discussion Bid Protest

    Home Building Likely to Stick to Slow Pace

    Pulte’s Kitchen Innovation Throw Down

    Virginia Families Hope to Sue over Chinese Drywall

    Housing Starts in U.S. Surge to Seven-Year High as Weather Warms

    Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

    Ensuring Arbitration in Construction Defect Claims

    The Regulations on the Trump Administration's Chopping Block
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 5500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Holland, Indiana Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Holland's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Holland, Indiana

    It’s Time to Start Planning for Implementation of OSHA’s Silica Rule

    May 03, 2017 —
    Getting a notification from OSHA that your company is being investigated for a health or safety violation is an unwanted disruption to your business that could lead to a hefty monetary fine. Worse yet, if your company is found to have committed multiple violations, OSHA may categorize your company as a severe violator, which makes you subject to follow-up inspections. In the last 6 years, OSHA has added 520 companies to the Severe Violator Enforcement Program - sixty percent of which are in the construction industry. New OSHA regulations impacting the construction industry may result in more companies facing investigations and fines, or worse yet, laying off workers and unable to compete for new work. In 2013, OSHA proposed a new mandate to reduce silicosis in workers. The mandate, which was revised multiple times before being made final in March 2016, requires that employers ensure their workers are exposed to no more than 50 micrograms of crystalline silica in an eight hour period (down from the current standard of 250 micrograms). Under the new mandate, employers are also held to heightened reporting requirements, protective measures and medical testing for employees with extended exposure to silica. In the construction industry alone, OSHA believes the new mandate will prevent 1,080 cases of silicosis and more than 560 deaths. Builder and trade groups believe the new mandate will result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and cost the building industry billions of dollars. The National Association of Home Builders estimates that the Silica Rule will cost homebuilders $1,500 per start. While the two sides mount their arguments and seek support, how to implement the rule and its long term feasibility are still contested questions. Recognizing the challenges employers will have with the heightened requirements of the Silica Rule, OSHA just announced that enforcement is being delayed 90 days to develop additional guidance for implementation of the rule in the construction industry. The new start date for enforcement of the Silica Rule is September 23, 2017.* Many in the industry are hoping the Trump administration repeals the Silica Rule like they have “blacklisting” and the Volks rule. However, until that happens, OSHA expects your company to implement processes to ensure compliance by the new start date. *The Silica Rule was adopted by Cal/OSHA in August 2016 even though Cal/OSHA’s own silica standard had been in place since 2008. Cal/OSHA adopted the federal standard with the June 23, 2017 effective date; however; in an effort to synchronize with OSHA, Cal/OSHA recently announced that the effective date in California will also be September 23, 2017. Nathan Owens is the Las Vegas Managing Partner of Newmeyer & Dillion, and represents businesses and individuals operating in a wide array of economic sectors including real estate, construction, insurance and health care in all stages of litigation in state and federal court. For questions related to the OSHA and the Silica Rule, you can reach him at Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer is an associate in Newmeyer & Dillion’s Newport Beach office. Dutch’s practice concentrates on the areas of business litigation, labor and employment law, and construction litigation. For questions related to OSHA or the Silica Rule, you can reach him at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Texas Supreme Court Limits the Use of the Economic Loss Rule

    September 03, 2014 —
    According to David Fisk of Kane Russell Coleman & Logan PC, in an article published by JD Supra Business Advisor, “[T]he Texas Supreme Court issued a per curium opinion limiting the application of the economic loss doctrine or rule, as it is referred to in Texas, in the context of residential construction defect claims.” In Chapman Custom Homes, Inc. v Dallas Plumbing Co., the court “ruled that a plumbing subcontractor assumes an implied duty not to flood or otherwise damage a home while performing its contract with a builder” and that “the economic loss rule does not apply in this context.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    2017 Construction Outlook: Slow, Mature Growth, but No Decline, Expected

    December 21, 2016 —
    As we count down the remaining days of 2016 (thank God) it’s time to think about what the new year will bring (I’m good with pretty much anything at this point). The economists at Dodge Data & Analytics have a few predictions. According to their 2017 Dodge Construction Outlook, they predict that U.S. construction starts will increase modestly in 2017, up 5% to $713 billion, after rather anemic growth in 2016 following several years of steady growth. According to Robert Murray, chief economist for Dodge Data & Analytics, while the first half of 2016 lagged behind construction activity in 2015, that shortfall grew smaller as the year progressed, easing concern that the construction industry might be in the early stage of a cyclical decline. Rather, according to Murray, it appears that the construction industry has now entered a more mature phase of expansion, one characterized by slower rates of growth than during the 2012-2015 period and that construction spending can be expected to see moderate gains through 2017 and beyond[.] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Colorado Court of Appeals Defines “Substantial Completion” for Subcontractors’ Work so as to Shorten the Period of Time in Which They Can Be Sued

    October 20, 2016 —
    Over the past few years, there has been a battle raging on in district courts and arbitration hearing rooms throughout Colorado regarding when a subcontractor’s work is to be deemed “substantially complete,” for purposes of triggering Colorado’s six-year statute of repose. C.R.S. § 13-80-104 states, in pertinent part:
    Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-102 after the claim for relief arises, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section. * * * (2) In case any such cause of action arises during the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion of the improvement to real property, said action shall be brought within two years after the date upon which said cause of action arises.
    C.R.S. § 13-80-104 (emphasis added). As the battle raged on at the trial court level, subcontractors and design professionals argued that their work should be deemed “substantially complete” when they finished their discrete scope of work within a project. Developers and general contractors, seeking to maintain third-party claims against the subcontractors and design professionals, typically argued either that the subcontractors’ and design professionals’ work should be deemed “substantially complete” upon the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy on the project, or upon the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the last building within a project on which the subcontractor or design professional worked. Trial court judges and arbitrators have been split on this issue, with perhaps a slight majority favoring one or the other approaches advocated by developers and general contractors, that the subcontractors’ and design professionals’ work is “substantially complete” upon the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy in a project (the minority view) or upon the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy for the last building within a project on which the subcontractor of design professional worked (the majority view). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at

    Colorado “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    August 11, 2011 —

    In Continental Western Ins. Co. v. Shay Construction, Inc., No. 10-cv-02126 (D. Col. July 28. 2011), general contractor Milender White subcontracted with insured Shay for framing work.   Shay in turn subcontracted some of its work to others.  When Shay?s subcontractors filed suit against Shay and Milender White seeking payment for their work, Milender White cross-claimed against Shay for breach of contract alleging that,Milender White notified Shay during construction that some of Shay?s work was defective and that when Shay repaired its defective work, it damaged work performed by others.  Shay’s CGL insurer Continental Western filed suit against Milender White and Shay seeking a judicial declaration of no coverage.  The federal district trial court granted Continental Western?s motion for summary judgment.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    How Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Decision Affects Coverage of Faulty Workmanship Claims

    March 31, 2014 —
    Darin J. McMullen of the firm Anderson Kill explained how a recent opinion by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court allows “Pennsylvania policyholders” to “more confidently challenge insurance companies’ denials of faulty workmanship claims.” The decision in Indalex Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2013 Pa. Super 311 (Dec. 3, 2013) “reverses a nearly decade-long trend of Pennsylvania decisions narrowing the scope of insurance coverage for construction and defect-related claims under commercial general liability insurance policies,” according to McMullen. “Equally important, the Indalex ruling dealt a blow to the insurance industry’s continual efforts to win overbroad expansion of the rulings in Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., Millers Capital Ins. Co. v. Gambone Bros. Dev. Co., and Erie Ins. Exchange v. Abbott Furnace Co., which found that claims of faulty workmanship in some circumstances may not constitute coverage-triggering ‘occurrences.’” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    OSHA Updates: You May Be Affected

    July 19, 2017 —
    Governor Brown Signs Legislation Increasing Cal/OSHA Fines Cal/OSHA has increased its maximum fines for the first time in more than twenty years pursuant to legislation recently signed into law by Governor Brown. The changes nearly double the maximum fines and have brought California in line with the Federal standard. The increase in fines will not be isolated to this year, as fines will now be automatically increased annually based on the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Additionally, any employer who repeatedly violates any occupational safety or health standard, order, or special order, or Section 25910 of the Health and Safety Code, can no longer receive any adjustment of a penalty assessed based on the good faith or the history of previous violations. Such adjustments were previously commonplace.
      Specific increases are listed below (all increases refer to maximum fines, Cal/OSHA has discretion as to the amount of the fine when issuing the citation):
    • Section 6427 of the Labor Code was amended to increase fines, not of a serious nature, from $7,000 for each violation to $12,471 for each violation.
    • Section 6429 of the Labor Code has increased fines for repeat violations; raising the maximum fine from $70,000 to $124,709 for each violation. Additionally, Section 6429 also raised the minimum fine for repeat violations from $5,000 to $8,908.
    • Section 6431 raised fines for posting or recordkeeping violations from $7,000 to $12,471 per violation.
    Full text of the penalty section of the labor code may be found here California OSHA Emergency Action Plan elements revised; California now more consistent with Federal Standards Revisions to General Safety Orders section 3220(b) became effective on June 5, 2017 and contain two minor changes for California employers with regards to Emergency Action Plans (EAP). The first change requires that an employer’s EAP be more detailed in describing the type of evacuation that is to be performed, not just the route for an evacuation. The previous element of the EAP simply required that the plan contain, “[e]mergency escape procedures and emergency escape route assignments.” The current element of the EAP requires that, “[p]rocedures for emergency evacuation, including type of evacuation and exit route assignments,” be identified. The second change clarifies the language surrounding employees performing rescue or medical duties. Previously the only requirement in the EAP regarding rescue and medical duties was for employees that performed rescue and medical duties. The current version requires that the EAP contain, “[p]rocedures to be followed by employees performing rescue or medical duties. The use of the word and created potential gaps in plans as it is likely that employees may not be performing both rescue and medical duties, instead performing just rescue or medical duties. Plans must now include procedures to be followed by employees who perform either rescue or medical duties. It is recommended that your EAP be in writing and updated to comply with the revised General Safety Orders section 3220. The full text of General Safety Orders section 3320 can be seen here. Please contact us if you would like further details regarding your Emergency Action Plan. Deadline for Electronic Submission of OSHA 300 Log Records for Injuries and Illnesses Delayed On May 12, 2016, the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a rule entitled “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” which required certain employers subject to Federal OSHA regulations to submit the information from their completed 2016 Form 300A to OSHA via electronic submission no later than July 1, 2017. On June 28, 2017, OSHA, via a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, has proposed a December 1, 2017 deadline for the electronic reporting; the electronic reporting system is scheduled to be available on August 1, 2017. Per the California Department of Industrial Relations, California employers are not required to follow the new requirements and will not be required to do so until "substantially similar" regulations go through formal rulemaking, which would culminate in adoption by the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations and approval by the Office of Administrative Law. Cal/OSHA drafted a proposed rulemaking package to conform to the revised federal OSHA regulations by amending the California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 14300.35, 14300.36, and 14300.41; these are currently under review with the State. It is currently unclear what, if any, impact the delay by OSHA will have on the proposed amendments to the California Code. We will keep you posted as to the changes in California recordkeeping requirements. Please contact Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer with any questions regarding Cal OSHA or your safety program. Dutch is located at Newmeyer & Dillion’s Newport Beach office and can be reached at or by calling 949.271.7208. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. 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 have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Multigenerational Housing Trend

    May 02, 2014 —
    Reuters reported that “[m]ore than 50 million Americans already live in multigenerational situations, according to Pew Research, and the number is expected to grow as baby boomers age.” Lennar Corp has “Next Gen” home models, which provides multigenerational housing for prices similar to traditional homes. For instance, according to Reuters, one of the Next Gen models contains “an 800-square-foot house-within-a-house” with “a separate entrance and its own patio, plus a bedroom, sitting area, and bathroom.” Other home builders are also providing multigenerational housing: “Gertz Fine Homes, which builds between 12-30 houses a year near Portland, Oregon, says about 30 percent of sales are now multigenerational models, which can cost around $600,000.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of