• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction Building Consultant Colony Kansas institutional building Building Consultant Colony Kansas housing Building Consultant Colony Kansas casino resort Building Consultant Colony Kansas condominiums Building Consultant Colony Kansas structural steel construction Building Consultant Colony Kansas Subterranean parking Building Consultant Colony Kansas office building Building Consultant Colony Kansas custom homes Building Consultant Colony Kansas retail construction Building Consultant Colony Kansas tract home Building Consultant Colony Kansas landscaping construction Building Consultant Colony Kansas multi family housing Building Consultant Colony Kansas low-income housing Building Consultant Colony Kansas condominium Building Consultant Colony Kansas custom home Building Consultant Colony Kansas production housing Building Consultant Colony Kansas concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Colony Kansas industrial building Building Consultant Colony Kansas hospital construction Building Consultant Colony Kansas Medical building Building Consultant Colony Kansas townhome construction Building Consultant Colony Kansas
    Colony Kansas building code compliance expert witnessColony Kansas building expertColony Kansas construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessColony Kansas expert witness roofingColony Kansas concrete expert witnessColony Kansas construction defect expert witnessColony Kansas construction safety expert
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Colony, Kansas

    Kansas Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB 2294 requires a claimant to serve a written notice of claim upon the contractor prior to filing a lawsuit. The law places deadlines on the contractor to serve notice on each subcontractor (15 days) and provide a written response to the claimant (30 days). It permits the claimant to file a lawsuit without further notice if the contractor disputes the claim, does not respond to the notice, does not complete work on the defect on a timely basis or does not make a payment in the time allowed.

    Building Consultant Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Colony Kansas

    No state license for general contracting. All businesses must register with the Department of Revenue.

    Building Consultant Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Hutchinson
    Local # 1720
    PO Box 2209
    Hutchinson, KS 67504

    Colony Kansas Building Consultant 10/ 10

    McPherson Area Contractors Association
    Local # 1735
    PO Box 38
    McPherson, KS 67460
    Colony Kansas Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Wichita Area Builders Association
    Local # 1780
    730 N Main St
    Wichita, KS 67203

    Colony Kansas Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Salina
    Local # 1750
    2125 Crawford Place
    Salina, KS 67401

    Colony Kansas Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Lawrence Home Builders Association
    Local # 1723
    PO Box 3490
    Lawrence, KS 66046

    Colony Kansas Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Topeka Home Builders Association
    Local # 1765
    1505 SW Fairlawn Rd
    Topeka, KS 66604

    Colony Kansas Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Kansas Home Builders Association
    Local # 1700
    212 SW 8th Ave Ste 201
    Topeka, KS 66603

    Colony Kansas Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Colony Kansas

    Housing Stocks Rally at End of November

    Insurance Alert: Insurer Delay Extends Time to Repair or Replace Damaged Property

    Illinois Town’s Bond Sale Halted Over Fraudulent Hotel Deals

    Manhattan Developer Wants Claims Dismissed in Breach of Contract Suit

    Serving Notice of Nonpayment Under Miller Act

    Modular Homes Test Energy Efficiency Standards

    Arizona Court Cites California Courts to Determine Construction Defect Coverage is Time Barred

    Wall Street Journal Analyzes the Housing Market Direction

    Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Is Drone Aerial Photography Really Best for Your Construction Projects?

    Constructive Changes – A Primer

    Montana Federal Court Holds that an Interior Department’s Federal Advisory Committee Was Improperly Reestablished

    What is the True Value of Rooftop Solar Panels?

    California Court of Appeal Holds That the Right to Repair Act Prohibits Class Actions Against Manufacturers of Products Completely Manufactured Offsite

    Is the Sky Actually Falling (on Green Building)?

    U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Maritime Charters and the Specter of a New Permitting Regime

    Preparing the Next Generation of Skilled Construction Workers: AGC Workforce Development Plan

    Your Work Exclusion Applies to Damage to Tradesman's Property, Not Damage to Other Property

    The Biggest Thing Keeping Young Homebuyers out of the Market Isn't Student Debt

    CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: World Class Shopping Experiences

    Reminder About the Upcoming Mechanic’s Lien Form Change

    New York Public Library’s “Most Comprehensive Renovation” In Its History

    Brief Overview of Rights of Unlicensed Contractors in California

    Nevada Court Adopts Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    Trump Abandons Plan for Council on Infrastructure

    Commercial Construction in the Golden State is Looking Pretty Golden

    South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

    Newmeyer & Dillion Named as One of the 2018 Best Places to Work in Orange County for Seventh Consecutive Year

    Court of Appeals Rules that HOA Lien is not Spurious, Despite Claim that Annexation was Invalid

    Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

    Louisiana District Court Declines to Apply Total Pollution Exclusion

    The ALI Restatement – What Lies Ahead?

    Estoppel Certificate? Estop and Check Your Lease

    Insurance Company’s Reservation of Rights Letter Negates its Interest in the Litigation

    Residential Construction Rise Expected to Continue

    Construction Trust Fund Statutes: Know What’s Required in the State Where Your Project Is Underway

    Cuomo Proposes $1.7 Billion Property-Tax Break for New York

    New Orleans Is Auctioning Off Vacant Lots Online

    Justin Bieber’s Unpaid Construction Bill Stalls House Sale

    Lease-Leaseback Fight Continues

    Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

    New Jersey Federal Court Examines And Applies The “j.(5)” Ongoing Operations Exclusion

    OSHA Begins Enforcement of its Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard. Try Saying That Five Times Real Fast

    When a Construction Lender Steps into the Shoes of the Developer, the Door is Open for Claims by the General Contractor

    California Pipeline Disaster Brings More Scandal for PG&E

    S&P 500 Little Changed on Home Sales Amid Quarterly Rally

    Housing Woes Worse in L.A. Than New York, San Francisco
    Corporate Profile


    The Colony, Kansas Building Consultant Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Colony'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 Consultant News & Info
    Colony, Kansas

    Force Majeure and COVID-19 in Construction Contracts – What You Need to Know

    April 06, 2020 —
    “Force Majeure” – While most construction contracts contain these provisions, they are often not understood in relation to the implications they may have on construction projects. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are all taking a closer look at many portions of our contracts. The following is a brief primer on how to understand your construction contract and its potential implications on your business in this season of change. What is a Force Majeure? Construction contracts usually take into consideration that the parties want to agree at the outset on who bears the risk of unforeseen incidents that may affect the project’s progression. These issues are generally handled in a “force majeure” clause. Force majeure, according to Mariam Webster’s Dictionary is a “superior or irresistible force; or an event or effect that cannot be reasonably anticipated or controlled.” To be deemed a force majeure, generally the circumstances must be outside of a party’s control which makes performance impossible, inadvisable, commercially impractical, or illegal. In addition to being unforeseeable, the circumstances must have external causation, and be unavoidable. However, the key to understanding if COVID-19 will be deemed a condition that will excuse a contractor’s performance is the specific language in the provision. Generally force majeure events are unavoidable events such as “acts of God,” most notably weather conditions including hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, landslides, and wildfires, as well as certain man-made events like riots, wars, terrorism, explosions, labor strikes, and scarcity of energy supplies. However, there is not much case law or specifics on conditions similar to COVID-19. Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees and Jason Suh, Gordon & Rees Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at Mr. Suh may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    COVID-19 Information and Resources

    May 04, 2020 —
    INTRODUCTION The current COVID-19 health crisis has greatly impacted nearly every aspect of our business and personal lives. The constant flow of rapidly evolving, and often contradictory information creates its own challenges for those who are responsible for ensuring compliance with relevant regulations and best practices while still moving forward with their business and family activities. This bulletin differs from most Chapman, Glucksman, Dean & Roeb bulletins in that it does not highlight a recent case, statute or a single development, but rather acts as a resource and “links” to provide you with needed information and to simplify your search for critical information during this unusual and challenging time. CIVIL LITIGATION: CLOSURES AND RESTRICTIONS The State and Federal Court systems in California have drastically reduced their operations. The Governor issued Executive Order N-38-20, this suspends certain limitations on the Chief Justice’s authority, making it possible for orders to be issued adapting the Court’s operations to address the COVID-19 health crisis. As of this time, the most recent statewide order from the Chief Justice is the March 30, 2020 Order which allows Courts to utilize remote technology when possible. The March 30, 2020 Order also clarifies a prior Order suspending all trials for 60 days. As many of you are aware, civil trials in California must commence within five years of the initiation of the action, this is commonly referred to as the “five year rule”. While the five year time period was initially extended by the Chief Justice for 60 days, the Judicial Council subsequently adopted a series of Emergency Rules, including one which extends this to six months for all civil actions filed on or before April 6, 2020. The Judicial Council also adopted rules tolling the statutes of limitation for civil causes of action are tolled from April 6, 2020 to 90 days after the state of emergency has ended. In addition to the statewide orders and rules, counties have enacted their own rules. Los Angeles Superior Court, for instance, has closed some locations while others remain open on a limited basis. On March 17, 2020 an Order was issued limiting the Court to “essential functions” through April 16, 2020. However, on April 15, 2020, a further Order extended the closure through May 12, 2020. While truly urgent Ex Partes may go forward, all regularly set hearings will be continued until after June 22, 2020. Trials will begin after June 22, 2020 with non-priority trials anticipated to start in later August or September. Notably, any deadlines imposed by current trial or hearing dates still stand until the specific dates are continued. As with other aspects of the COVID-19 health crisis, the impact upon Civil Litigation continues to evolve, for the most up to date information we include the following links to the California Courts. The first page includes links to all the State and County Orders, the second page is for the Judicial Council Rules. Links: STATE AND LOCAL STAY AT HOME ORDERS The State of California declared a state of emergency on March 4, 2020. On March 13, 2020 the President declared a national state of emergency. On March 19, 2020 Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20, also known as the “Stay at Home” order. This orders all Californian’s to stay at home, unless they are part of an essential businesses are exempt which generally includes construction and insurance. Generally, Californians are allowed to run essential errands, but they are not to congregate with those outside of their household. In addition to the State, many cities and counties have enacted additional orders regarding whether certain types of businesses can remain open, use of parks, trails and other public amenities as well as what type of protective measures must be adhered to such as covering your face in public. As with Civil Litigation, the State and Local Government regulations continue to evolve. A link to the State’s COVID-19 page is below and we also encourage you to check your local City and County sites for additional information. BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL GUIDELINES The impact of COVID-19 is unprecedented. While “essential businesses” may remain open for customers, steps must be taken to protect the health of both employees and customers. There are both State and, in many instances, Local Government regulations addressing these precautions. In addition to taking safety measures to protect the health of all involved, there are a multitude of financial concerns to be addressed. While most people have already heard about the moratorium on residential and commercial evictions, this does little to address how property owners will receive funds to pay their financial obligations, how tenants can pay their other obligations, how either can make payroll and most importantly, how employees who can no longer work due to their “non-essential” business being closed can put food on their tables. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES” act) may provide financial relief for many business by means of loans, some of which may be forgivable, and tax credits. The CARES act also modifies the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) to provide paid leave for those who cannot work due to COVID-19 as well as other benefits. The IRS has extended the deadline to file and pay taxes to July 15, 2020. Additionally, there are other Federal and State benefits which may be available for those whose jobs are impacted. The financial impacts of COVID-19 are far reaching and continue to evolve. The Department of Insurance ordered insurance companies to return premiums for at least the months of March and April. This applies to certain lines of insurance where the risk of loss has fallen substantially. However, business interruption, environmental and pollution claims have increased exponentially. While most such policies require some physical damage in order to trigger an occurrence, there has been some discussion of legislation deeming the COVID-19 pandemic to fulfill the physical damage requirement. If your business has been closed or impacted by COVID-19 we encourage you to review your insurance policies and key contracts to ascertain what your rights and obligations are as well as whether you may have any coverage for your losses. Just as importantly, speak with your business partners including vendors, customers and employees to ascertain their capabilities and willingness to work through this crisis. US Department of Labor OSHA Guidelines: California Labor & Workforce Development Agency Resource Page: California Employment Development Department: CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES Many of our clients are involved in the construction industry. Construction has been deemed an essential activity and is exempt from many of the “stay at home” orders but certain protections and regulations still apply. In addition to the general workplace guidelines discussed above certain jurisdictions are providing guidance as to how to provide a safe construction site workplace. We have included a link the Los Angeles Department Building and Safety guidelines below. However, in some instances work on a project may be delayed or may not be able to progress due to the project owner stopping work or the inability of subcontractors or suppliers to continue as originally intended. In this case one should review their contracts to see what justifies delay and inability to perform by either party and the impact thereof. Contracts should also be evaluated to ascertain whether the costs associated with compliance with the new COVID-19 regulations are a recoverable cost under the contract. As with the general business discussion above, contractors should review all available insurance, including builder’s risk to ascertain the existence of possible coverage. LA DBS guidelines: SUMMARY The COVID-19 health crisis has had and, for the foreseeable future, will have a broad and severe impact on our society. The variety of evolving regulations on the Federal, State and Local Government levels make it challenging to comply, especially for businesses in operation. There are also a variety of resources available to help ensure compliance with these regulations as well as the financial and physical viability of our communities’ companies and employees. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need any assistance in navigating these rules and resources. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb and Brian D. Kahn, Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at Mr. Kahn may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    White and Williams LLP Secures Affirmation of Denial to Change Trial Settings Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to Meet the Texas Causation Standard for Asbestos Cases

    July 06, 2020 —
    The Delaware Supreme Court, in a rare split opinion, affirmed the trial court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Request to Change Trial Settings in favor of all defendants, including a major automotive manufacturer represented by White and Williams LLP, in a mesothelioma case with a young decedent who had an alleged economic loss claim exceeding $9,000,000, in Shaw v. American Friction, Inc. et al., No. 86, 2019. This decision operates to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims based on their failure to meet Delaware’s strict expert deadlines and establish a prima facie case under Texas law. Plaintiffs’ Complaint invoked the application of Texas substantive law and alleged that multiple manufacturers were negligent and strictly liable for failing to warn the decedent of the alleged dangers posed by the use of asbestos-containing products. Plaintiffs’ alleged asbestos exposures from defendants’ products caused Mr. Shaw’s disease and subsequent death. In 2007, Texas instituted its now well-known causation requirement, which requires the “dose” of asbestos exposure from each defendant’s products to be quantified by an expert. Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, 232 S.W.3d 765, 773 (Tex. 2007). Prior to decedent’s death, Plaintiffs’ counsel deposed decedent and his father for product identification purposes. During the depositions, Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to obtain the necessary factual information from his clients for an expert to be able to opine as to alleged exposure doses from any defendant’s product. Despite lacking the requisite information for a prima facie case under Texas law, Plaintiffs sought and were given placement in an expedited trial setting, which had strict, defined deadlines. Reprinted courtesy of Christian Singewald, White and Williams LLP and Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP Mr. Singewald may be contacted at Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick are JD Supra’s 2020 Readers’ Choice Award Recipients

    July 13, 2020 —
    Haight is thrilled to announce that Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick are receiving JD Supra’s 2020 Readers’ Choice Awards. The award acknowledges top authors and firms for their thought leadership in key topics during 2019. This is Valerie’s third JD Supra Readers’ Choice Award and Christopher’s second. Specifically, Valerie and Chris receive the following recognition for the level of visibility and engagement our firm and authors attained in 2019, from among thousands of others, with readers of these topics: Valerie Moore – a top author in Insurance Christopher Kendrick – a top author in Insurance JD Supra’s Readers Choice Awards The Readers’ Choice Awards recognize top authors and firms who were read by C-suite executives, in-house counsel, media and other professionals across the JD Supra platform during 2019. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at Ms. Moore may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sometimes You Just Need to Call it a Day: Court Finds That Contractor Not Entitled to Recover Costs After Public Works Contract is Invalidated

    June 29, 2020 —
    January was a tough month in the courts for Hensel Phelps Construction Company. Hot off the heels of Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Superior Court, a case concerning the 10-year statute of limitations under Civil Code section 941, comes Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Case No. B293427 (January 28, 2020), a bid dispute case . . . The Tale of a Bid, a Bid Protest, and Two Cases A. The Bid and Bid Protest On March 15, 2015, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) issues an Invitation for Bid for the HVAC project at the Ironwood State Prison. The deadline to submit bids was April 30, 2015. Hensel Phelps Construction Co. submitted a timely bid and was determined to be the “apparent low bidder” with a bid of $88,160,000. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Do You Have A Florida’s Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act Claim

    April 27, 2020 —
    In previous articles, I discussed Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act referred to as “FDUTPA”…but, it has been awhile. (For more information on FDUTPA, check here and here.) Now is as good of a time as any to discuss it again because FDUTPA provides a private cause of action and, perhaps, there may be a consideration as to whether such claim can be (or is) properly asserted in the context of your circumstances. FDUTPA is a statutory scheme designed, “To protect the consuming public and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Fla. Stat. s. 501.201(2). In doing so, FDUTPA authorizes three avenues of legal recourse against an offending party: “(1) declaratory relief; (2) injunctive relief; and (3) [monetary] damages.” Webber v. Bactes Imaging Solutions, Inc., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D125a (Fla. 2d DCA 2020);Fla. Stat. s. 501.211. “An unfair practice is ‘one that “offends established public policy” and one that is ‘immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.’” Webber, supra, (citation omitted). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Return-to-Workplace Checklist: Considerations and Emerging Best Practices for Employers

    July 20, 2020 —
    As employers plan to return employees to the workplace, they should proceed with careful planning and incorporate best practices and measures to assure a safe, responsible and productive workplace. While there is no "one size fits all" plan, the following checklist will assist in assuring that your work environment includes the key safety components to return to the workplace in the midst of a pandemic. PREPARING THE WORKPLACE FOR RETURN & GENERAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
    • Create a company task force, safety committee or coordinator to oversee implementation of policies that address and enforce practices related to COVID-19.
    • Ensure HVAC systems are functional, have been properly cleaned and serviced and tuned to maximize airflow and filtration.
    • Review and increase cleaning protocols in coordination with lease terms and cleaning contracts. Ensure regular and thorough office cleanings, with a focus on high-touch surfaces and areas. Document cleaning protocols and schedule.
    • Implement social distancing requirements and provide visual markers on floors in compliance with applicable federal, state and local orders.
    • Rearrange work spaces, conference rooms and lunchrooms to comply with social distancing requirements.
    • Post notices about the number of individuals permitted in elevators, stairwells, rooms and on the premises.
    • Restrict movement between departments and floors.
    Reprinted courtesy of Nancy Conrad, White and Williams LLP and George C. Morrison, White and Williams LLP Ms. Conrad may be contacted at Mr. Morrison may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Last, but NOT Least: Why You Should Take a Closer Look at Your Next Indemnification Clause

    March 09, 2020 —
    Indemnification clauses appear in nearly every agreement, but they are often overlooked as mere boilerplate provisions after the parties have painstakingly negotiated all of the other terms. It is not uncommon for parties to simply re-use the indemnity language from a prior agreement without considering whether it is a good fit for their current project. This can be a big mistake that may lead to ambiguities and uncertainties if a dispute arises down the road. A standard or canned indemnification clause might work to undo all of the effort that has gone into properly allocating risk. These clauses often contain language such as “notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein,” or the like, which can alter and override other provisions in the agreement. Indemnification clauses are arguably the most important part of an agreement when an accident or dispute arises on a project. Therefore, they deserve an extra look before finalizing an agreement. Here are a few issues to keep in mind when reviewing your next indemnification clause:
    • Have you included all necessary parties?
      • Any party who could face potential liability should be included as an indemnified party. This often includes entities and persons related to the contracting parties, not just the parties themselves.
      • A well drafted indemnity clause will ensure that all parties are liable for the result of their own work and negligence and that of any party that they have hired to work on a project. This includes employees, agents, subcontractors, or any other similar party.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aimee Cook Oleson, Sheppard Mullin
    Ms. Oleson may be contacted at