• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Rockdale Illinois tract home building expert Rockdale Illinois low-income housing building expert Rockdale Illinois parking structure building expert Rockdale Illinois condominium building expert Rockdale Illinois industrial building building expert Rockdale Illinois high-rise construction building expert Rockdale Illinois Medical building building expert Rockdale Illinois mid-rise construction building expert Rockdale Illinois housing building expert Rockdale Illinois institutional building building expert Rockdale Illinois condominiums building expert Rockdale Illinois office building building expert Rockdale Illinois hospital construction building expert Rockdale Illinois retail construction building expert Rockdale Illinois production housing building expert Rockdale Illinois landscaping construction building expert Rockdale Illinois multi family housing building expert Rockdale Illinois custom home building expert Rockdale Illinois Subterranean parking building expert Rockdale Illinois custom homes building expert Rockdale Illinois concrete tilt-up building expert Rockdale Illinois
    Rockdale Illinois soil failure expert witnessRockdale Illinois delay claim expert witnessRockdale Illinois expert witness concrete failureRockdale Illinois construction forensic expert witnessRockdale Illinois ada design expert witnessRockdale Illinois construction scheduling expert witnessRockdale Illinois construction project management expert witnesses
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Rockdale, 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 Rockdale Illinois

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

    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Southern Illinois
    Local # 1466
    PO Box 510
    Cobden, IL 62920

    Rockdale Illinois Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Southwest Illinois
    Local # 1468
    6100 W Main St
    Maryville, IL 62062

    Rockdale Illinois Building Expert 10/ 10

    Effingham Area Home Builders Association
    Local # 1423
    PO Box 1323
    Effingham, IL 62401

    Rockdale Illinois Building Expert 10/ 10

    Springfield Area Home Builders Association
    Local # 1470
    3921 Pintail Dr Ste B
    Springfield, IL 62711

    Rockdale Illinois Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Illinois
    Local # 1400
    112 W Edwards Street
    Springfield, IL 62704

    Rockdale Illinois Building Expert 10/ 10

    Metro Decatur Home Builders Association
    Local # 1435
    PO Box 1166
    Decatur, IL 62525

    Rockdale Illinois Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Quincy
    Local # 1460
    PO Box 3615
    Quincy, IL 62305
    Rockdale Illinois Building Expert 10/ 10

    Building Expert News and Information
    For Rockdale Illinois

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Celebrates 21-Year Success Story

    Construction Site Blamed for Flooding

    Housing Starts in U.S. Climb to an Almost Eight-Year High

    Oregon Bridge Closed to Inspect for Defects

    Netherlands’ Developer Presents Modular Homes for Young Professionals

    Appellate Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

    An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy

    Temporary Obstructions Are a Permanent Problem Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    2016 Hawaii Legislature Enacts Five Insurance-Related Bills

    New Nafta Could Settle Canada-U.S. Lumber War, Resolute CEO Says

    Hurdles with Triggering a Subcontractor Performance Bond

    As Recovery Continues, Home Improvement Stores Make Sales

    Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

    New York State Trial Court: Non-Cumulation Provision in Excess Policies Mandates “All Sums” Allocation

    Does Stricter Decertification Mean More “Leedigation?”

    Nevada Provides Independant Counsel When Conflict Arises Between Insurer and Insured

    Apartment Projects Fuel 13% Jump in U.S. Housing Starts

    Who Says You Can’t Choose between Liquidated Damages or Actual Damages?

    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

    Firm Seeks to Squash Subpoena in Coverage CD Case

    Contractor Beware: Design-Build Firms Must Review Washington’s Licensing Requirements

    Flag on the Play! Expired Contractor’s License!

    Tesla Finishes First Solar Roofs—Including Elon's House

    Architectural Democracy – Interview with Pedro Aibéo

    First-Time Buyers Shut Out of Expanding U.S. Home Supply

    SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages

    Manhattan Condo Resale Prices Reach Record High

    Wine without Cheese? (Why a construction contract needs an order of precedence clause)(Law Note)

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Buy a House or Pay Off College? $1.2 Trillion Student Debt Heats Up in Capital

    In Florida, Exculpatory Clauses Do Not Need Express Language Referring to the Exculpated Party's Negligence

    Health Officials Concerned About Lead-Tainted Dust Created by Detroit Home Demolitions

    Additional Insured Is Covered Under On-Going Operations Endorsement Despite Subcontractor's Completion of Work

    Will They Blow It Up?

    We Knew Concrete Could Absorb Carbon—New Study Tells How Much

    Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable

    Foreman in Fatal NYC Trench Collapse Gets Jail Sentence

    Appeals Court Explains Punitive Damages Awards For Extreme Reprehensibility Or Unusually Small, Hard-To-Detect Or Hard-To-Measure Compensatory Damages

    World-Famous Architects Design $480,000 Gazebos for Your Backyard

    Quick Note: Insurer Must Comply with Florida’s Claims Administration Act

    Daiwa House to Invest 150 Billion Yen in U.S. Rental Housing

    Notice of Claim Sufficient to Invoke Coverage

    Triggering Duty to Advance Costs Same Standard as Duty to Defend

    The Ghosts of Baha Mar: How a $3.5 Billion Paradise Went Bust

    2017 Colorado Construction Defect Recap: Colorado Legislature and Judiciary Make Favorable Advances for Development Community

    New Jersey Courts Speed Up Sandy Litigation

    Inability to Confirm Coverage Supports Setting Aside Insured’s Default Judgment on Grounds of Extrinsic Mistake

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports CDCCF Charity at 2014 WCC Seminar

    Should CGL Insurer have Duty to Defend Insured During Chapter 558 Notice of Construction Defects Process???
    Corporate Profile


    The Rockdale, 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 Rockdale'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
    Rockdale, Illinois

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

    March 19, 2014 —
    In North Counties Engineering v. State Farm (No. A133713, filed 3/13/14), State Farm insured an engineering company under CGL insurance that had a professional services exclusion and included products-completed operations (PCO) coverage. The owner of the engineering company, NCE, contracted with a winery to construct a dam and associated works. Also on the project was the owner's son, who had his own construction company, NCD. There were multiple contracts, both oral and written, variously naming one company or the other. The evidence later showed that the father performed hands-on work for the project. After completion, the winery was sued over sediment and erosion caused by the dam. State Farm denied coverage on the ground that the professional services exclusion applied, as well as a mistaken belief that the policy had no PCO coverage. State Farm then changed its position and agreed to defend, but only going forward. The insured sued State Farm over past defense fees, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. The case went to trial and after testimony detailing State Farm's claim handling, the trial judge granted a nonsuit, finding that the professional services exclusion barred all coverage: "[I]f you look at the pleadings, the legal pleadings and the contracts, the NCE role is, as the engineering company, the support company, and that company was overseeing the [sic] NCD to make sure that whatever they did was done right.... NCE is the expert on the job, the professional providing professional services, design and construction, and also overseeing the work of NCD, the son’s business, which is doing more of the physical activity.... That takes professional expertise and I think all of what Mr. Akerstrom did was professional.... It was this professional work, and not 'something incidental to their professional involvement' that gave rise to the underlying actions. In this situation, it’s not a malpractice or E and O policy. It’s a business policy, which has good benefits, but is subject to the professional services exclusion." Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Home Building Likely to Stick to Slow Pace

    November 13, 2013 —
    The National Association of Realtors is predicting that home builders will continue to be cautious in the number of homes they build, leading to a continued shortage and higher prices for those that are built. “The inventory shortage will not go away,” said Lawrence Yun, the chief economist for the National Association of Realtors. According to Mr. Yun, the inventory is the lowest it has been in 13 years. As a result of many factors, including rising home prices and rising interest rates, the group is predicting that new home sales will remain flat next year, offering little incentive to builders. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Musk Backs Off Plan for Tunnel in Tony Los Angelenos' Backyard

    December 19, 2018 —
    Elon Musk’s futuristic tunneling company, Boring Co., is no longer embroiled in a lawsuit with the residents of West Los Angeles. A May lawsuit aimed at stopping the Boring Co.’s proposed tunnel under Sepulveda Boulevard has been settled, according to a notice filed at the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Neighbors in the Brentwood and Sunset Boulevard areas, near the proposed tunnel, had sued the City of Los Angeles over the Boring Co.’s plans to build a test tunnel without going through an environmental review process, as recommended in April by the city’s public works committee. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah McBride & Edvard Pettersson, Bloomberg

    Virtual Reality for Construction

    July 14, 2016 —
    Paradoxically, Virtual Reality (VR) technologies are still lagging behind the visions that people have for their use. However, VR has already demonstrated its capacity to change the ways we design, make decisions about, and produce built environments. Is VR finally feasible? Two AEC Hackathons and meetings with certain startups have made me think that Virtual Reality (VR) might finally break through in construction. There are two reasons for my belief. Firstly, 3D and building information modeling (BIM) are widely adopted in the industry. The idea of virtual buildings and environments is nothing new and has become very natural. Secondly, there’s a growing interest in Gaming and Entertainment VR investments. This will push the technology forward and make it affordable to consumers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules in Builder’s Implied Warranty of Habitability Case

    September 03, 2014 —
    According to an article in JD Supra Business Advisor (written by Mark S. DePillis, Carl G. Roberts, Benjamin M. Schmidt, and Matthew White of Ballard Spahr LLP), “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a builder’s implied warranty of habitability extends only to the initial buyer of a home, and not to subsequent purchasers.” This reversed an earlier ruling in Conway v. The Cutler Group, Inc. “that created more expansive liability for home builders.” DePillis, Roberts, Schmidt, and White suggested that “builders should monitor possible future legislation addressing the public policy issues that the Supreme Court identified as falling squarely within the legislature’s domain.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases

    August 19, 2015 —
    In Babcock & Wilcox Company, et al. v. America Nuclear Insurers, et al., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that where a liability insurer has agreed to provide a defense to its insured in an underlying tort action subject to a reservation of rights but refuses to consent to a settlement in that action, the insured may nevertheless accept the settlement over the insurer’s objection where the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and non-collusive” from the perspective of a reasonably prudent person in the insured’s position in light of the totality of the circumstances and is covered. Babcock & Wilcox Company v. America Nuclear Insurers, No. 2 WAP 2014, 2015 WL 4430352 (Pa. Jul. 21, 2015). This decision fills an important gap in Pennsylvania precedent addressing the rules applicable when an insurer refuses to consent to an insured’s settlement of a lawsuit. In Babcock, the underlying plaintiffs sued Babcock & Wilcox Company and Atlantic Richfield Company (“the Insureds”) alleging that the Insured’s nuclear facilities caused bodily injury and property damage. The Insureds’ liability insurers agreed to defend the Insureds subject to a reservation of rights. The insurers later refused to consent to an offer to settle the underlying action for a total of $80 million because they believed the Insureds were likely to succeed on the merits. Nevertheless, in 2009, the Insureds accepted that offer and settled the underlying action for $80 million, notwithstanding the insurer’s refusal. The Insureds then sought reimbursement of the $80 million settlement from their insurers, who rejected that request on the ground that the Insureds had breached the consent-to-settlement/cooperation provisions of the implicated policies. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sean Mahoney, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at

    How the Election Could Affect the Housing Industry: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    October 07, 2016 —
    Though non-policy issues dominating the news cycle have set this presidential election apart, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have recognized the importance of housing and infrastructure investment. In an article for Construction Today, Partner Steven Cvitanovic outlines several challenges facing the real estate development industry, and analyzes how Clinton and Trump might benefit or harm the industry. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at

    Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law

    May 10, 2012 —

    The US District Court for Maryland has granted a summary judgment in the case Konover Construction Corp. v. ATC Associates to Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company and denied a request for dismissal from ACT. Konover (KBE) was contracted by Wal-Mart to build a Wal-Mart store and a Sam’s Club in Port Covington, Maryland. Superus, Inc. was hired by KBE to build the masonry walls. Superus purchased a policy from Massachusetts Bay Insurance which named KBE as an additional insured. Wal-Mart hired ATC Associates to independently test and inspect the concrete structural steel, and masonry.

    After the building was in use, a large crack appeared which was attributed a latent construction defect. Other cracks were discovered. Upon investigation, it was discovered that there were “voids or foam in the concrete block surrounding the reinforcing steel that should have been filled with grout,” and in some cases, “reinforcing steel was missing or not installed in accordance with the specifications.” KBE paid for the repair and remediation and Wal-Mart assigned all rights and interests against ATC to KBE.

    KBE filed suit against ATC. ATC called for dismissal on the grounds that Wal-Mart had no claims as the problems had been remediated. Wal-Mart then provided KBE with additional agreements to give them enforceable rights against ATC and Superus. KBE filed a fourteen claims against ATC, Superus, and Massachusetts Bay. In the current case, Massachusetts Bay sought summary judgment and ATC sought dismissal of all claims against it.

    Massachusetts Bay claims that they need not indemnify Superus, as “there is no evidence adequate to establish that Superus’ defective work caused any collateral and/or resulting damage that was not subject to an Impaired Property exclusion, and that, in any event, no damage occurred during the policy period.”

    As Wal-Mart is headquarted in Arkansas, certain contracts were under Arkansas law. Under the Arkansas courts, “defective workmanship, standing alone and resulting in damages only to the work product itself, is not an ‘occurrence.’” The court determined that collateral or resultant damage would be covered. The court found that “it is clear under Arkansas law, and the parties appear to agree, that Massachusetts Bay is not obligated to indemnify KBE for any repairs to the masonry walls themselves, including any cracks or gaps in the walls.” The court also found that “there is no evidence adequate to prove that any allegedly resultant property damage was caused by Superus’ faulty construction of the walls.” The court also noted that “if the building code violation and structural integrity problem were ‘property damage,’ insurance coverage would be barred by the Impaired Property Exclusion.” Based on these findings, the court concluded that Massachusetts Bay is entitled to summary judgment.

    While the court dismissed the case against Massachusetts Bay, the court declined ATC’s motion to dismiss. The court noted that ACT’s alleged negligence in conducting inspections “created only a risk of economic loss for KBE.” Although hired by Wal-Mart, ATC “transmitted its daily testing and inspection reports of the Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club projects directly to KBE.” The court found that “KBE has made a plausible claim.”

    ATC also claimed that KBE contributed to the negligence due to the negligence of its subcontractor. The court concluded that it was plausible that “ATC will not be able to carry its burden of proving KBE was contributorily negligent.” The court was less sanguine about KBE’s fraud claim, but though it “may not now appear likely to have merit, it is above the ‘plausibility’ line.”

    In conclusion, KBE may not continue its case against Massachusetts Bay. However, the judge allowed the other proceedings to continue.

    Read the court’s decision…

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