• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building Building Consultant Isabel Kansas townhome construction Building Consultant Isabel Kansas mid-rise construction Building Consultant Isabel Kansas landscaping construction Building Consultant Isabel Kansas multi family housing Building Consultant Isabel Kansas office building Building Consultant Isabel Kansas casino resort Building Consultant Isabel Kansas concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Isabel Kansas housing Building Consultant Isabel Kansas condominium Building Consultant Isabel Kansas production housing Building Consultant Isabel Kansas condominiums Building Consultant Isabel Kansas tract home Building Consultant Isabel Kansas custom homes Building Consultant Isabel Kansas high-rise construction Building Consultant Isabel Kansas parking structure Building Consultant Isabel Kansas custom home Building Consultant Isabel Kansas retail construction Building Consultant Isabel Kansas Subterranean parking Building Consultant Isabel Kansas institutional building Building Consultant Isabel Kansas low-income housing Building Consultant Isabel Kansas Medical building Building Consultant Isabel Kansas
    Isabel Kansas expert witnesses fenestrationIsabel Kansas construction code expert witnessIsabel Kansas building code compliance expert witnessIsabel Kansas architect expert witnessIsabel Kansas testifying construction expert witnessIsabel Kansas soil failure expert witnessIsabel Kansas contractor expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Isabel, 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 Isabel Kansas

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

    Building Consultant Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Wichita Area Builders Association
    Local # 1780
    730 N Main St
    Wichita, KS 67203

    Isabel Kansas Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Hutchinson
    Local # 1720
    PO Box 2209
    Hutchinson, KS 67504

    Isabel Kansas Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

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

    Isabel Kansas Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Isabel Kansas Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Isabel Kansas Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Isabel Kansas Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Isabel Kansas

    The Case For Designers Shouldering More Legal Responsibility

    Home Prices on the Rise

    Corps Issues Draft EIS for Controversial Alaskan Copper Mine

    Single-Family Home Starts Seen Catching Up to Surging U.S. Sales

    Homeowners Sued for Failing to Disclose Defects

    White House’s New Draft Guidance Limiting NEPA Review of Greenhouse Gas Impacts Is Not So New or Limiting

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at a Faster Pace in October

    COVID-19 Is Not Direct Physical Loss Or Damage

    Employee or Independent Contractor? New Administrator’s Interpretation Issued by Department of Labor Provides Guidance

    From Both Sides Now: Looking at Contracts Through a Post-Pandemic Lens

    Slump in U.S. Housing Starts Led by Multifamily: Economy

    Supreme Court of Wisconsin Applies Pro Rata Allocation Based on Policy Limits to Co-Insurance Dispute

    Construction Defect Class Action Lawsuit Alleges National Cover-up of Pipe Defects

    Study Finds San Francisco Bay is Sinking Faster than Expected

    Wendel Rosen Construction Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Homeowners Not Compelled to Arbitration in Construction Defect Lawsuit

    No Duty to Defend Suit That Is Threatened Under Strict Liability Statute

    Less Than Perfectly Drafted Endorsement Bars Flood Coverage

    Manhattan Townhouse Sells for a Record $79.5 Million

    Another TV Fried as Georgia Leads U.S. in Lightning Costs

    Can an Owner Preemptively Avoid a Mechanics Lien?

    OSHA Updates: You May Be Affected

    Nebraska Joins the Ranks—No CGL Coverage for Faulty Work

    The “Program Accessibility” Exception for Public Entities Under the ADA

    Construction Up in Northern Ohio

    The Air in There: Offices, and Issues, That Seem to Make Us Stupid

    Florida Lien Law and Substantial Compliance vs. Strict Compliance

    Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

    Coverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not Covered

    Unbilled Costs Remain in Tutor Perini's Finances

    Building Inspector Jailed for Taking Bribes

    Denver’s Mayor Addresses Housing and Modifying Construction Defect Law

    Another Colorado Construction Defect Reform Bill Dies

    New Jersey Law regarding Prior Expert’s Testimony

    New Braves Stadium Is Three Months Ahead of Schedule, Team Says

    How Mushrooms Can Be Used To Make Particle Board Less Toxic

    Defense Victory in Breach of Fiduciary Action

    Insurer Not Bound by Decision in Underlying Case Where No Collateral Estoppel

    Congratulations to our 2019 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    Insurer Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs Under Unjust Enrichment Theory

    Oregon Construction Firm Sued for Construction Defects

    Resurgent Housing Seen Cushioning U.S. From World Woes: Economy

    Could This Gel Help Tame the California Fires?

    Kiewit-Turner Stops Work on VA Project—Now What?

    Look Out! Texas Building Shedding Marble Panels

    Terminating the Notice of Commencement (with a Notice of Termination)

    Where Standing, Mechanic’s Liens, and Bankruptcy Collide

    Former SNC-Lavalin CEO Now Set for Trial in Bribe Case

    New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws
    Corporate Profile


    The Isabel, 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 Isabel'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
    Isabel, Kansas

    The COVID-19 Impact: Navigating the Legal Landscape’s New Normal

    July 27, 2020 —
    While most of the country has been at a standstill since March, you might be wondering, what about my lawsuit or my administrative charge? For the past couple of months, most litigation cases have largely been put on pause in the courts and at administrative agencies. However, as we adjust to what is clearly a new normal in both our lives and the legal landscape as we know it, cases will begin to pick up speed again, albeit with new strategies and challenges to keep in mind. As courts begin to reopen, judges are emphasizing in many jurisdictions that criminal cases will take priority in an effort to attend to constitutionally required timelines. Nevertheless, it will remain just as important as before the pause button was hit to keep cases moving forward. This ramp up period presents a unique opportunity for clients and attorneys to invest meaningful time into investigating and developing defenses to claims while the court system and related case pace remains slowed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Amanda Mathieu, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Mathieu may be contacted at

    COVID-19 Business Interruption Lawsuits Begin: Iconic Oceana Grill in New Orleans Files Insurance Coverage Lawsuit

    April 20, 2020 —
    On Monday, the iconic New Orleans restaurant, Oceana Grill, filed the first Coronavirus-related business interruption insurance coverage lawsuit in a US jurisdiction. The declaratory judgment action styled Cajun Conti, LLC, et. al. d/b/a Oceana Grill v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London was filed in Louisiana state court for the Parish of Orleans. As a direct result of the government-mandated closures and restrictions on public gatherings implemented by the City of New Orleans and State of Louisiana, Oceana Grill’s petition anticipates a significant loss of business income. Based on allegations in the petition, there are several aspects of Oceana Grill’s policy that make this a good test case for business interruption coverage stemming from the Coronavirus. Although the specific policy language is not quoted in the petition, coverage provisions are categorically identified throughout. As a preliminary matter, the policy at issue appears to be written on an “all risks” basis, meaning the insuring agreement of the policy would likely be triggered generally by all risks of “physical loss or damage” unless specifically excluded. This basis for coverage, which is common in property policies, is advantageous to policyholders, as it limits the insured’s burden of proof to establishing that there was physical loss or damage while leaving the burden of applying any more specific exclusion to the insurance company. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Vita may be contacted at Mr. Bennett may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Solutions To 4 Common Law Firm Diversity Challenges

    April 27, 2020 —
    Minority attorneys continue to depart law firms at a higher rate than those in the majority and continue to be substantially underrepresented at the partner level. With the continued demands of clients and other organizations to improve diversity, law firms need to embrace new and creative solutions. To address the concern, the California Minority Counsel Program, or CMCP, held an interactive workshop in February for members to brainstorm and develop solutions to specific diversity challenges and share them with their peers. This was a rare occasion for attorneys to be able to discuss real issues they are facing in their firms and to develop a potential road map to success as opposed to listening to a panel discussion followed by the usual Q&A session. Payne & Fears LLP is a member of CMCP, so our firm had the opportunity to participate in this workshop. Law firm leaders and HR professionals may want to pay particular attention to the suggestions outlined in this article as their firms strive to diversify. The topics can be uncomfortable, but if not addressed, the problem of underrepresentation will continue to spread. Many of these ideas do not cost much in the way of money, but they do require time and commitment to change. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alexandra DeFelice, Payne & Fears
    Ms. DeFelice may be contacted at

    SB 939 Proposes Moratorium On Unlawful Detainer Actions For Commercial Tenants And Allows Tenants Who Can't Renegotiate Their Lease In Good Faith To Terminate Their Lease Without Liability

    June 01, 2020 —
    SB 939 is currently working its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee. The legislation would impose new obligations on landlords, and provide protections for commercial tenants who meet specified criteria. SB 939 would impose a moratorium on eviction of those qualified commercial tenants while emergency COVID-19 orders are in effect. Any eviction actions commenced after the date of the emergency COVID-19 order, but before the adoption of SB 939, would be void and unenforceable. The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for SB 939 on May 22, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. Who qualifies as a commercial tenant under SB 939? To qualify under this legislation, a commercial tenant must be a business that operates primarily in California. The commercial tenant must be a small business, nonprofit, an eating or drinking establishment, place of entertainment, or performance venue. Publicly traded companies or any company owned by, or affiliated with a publicly traded company, do not qualify. The commercial tenant must have experienced a decline of at least 40 percent monthly revenue, either as compared to two months before the emergency COVID-19 order, or other local government shelter-in-place orders took effect, or as compared to the same month in 2019. If the commercial tenant is an eating or drinking establishment, place of entertainment, or performance venue, the commercial tenant must also show a decline of 25 percent or more in capacity due to social or physical distancing orders or safety concerns, and show that it is subject to regulations to prevent the spread of COVID-19 that will financially impair the business when compared to the period before the emergency COVID-19 order or other local shelter-in-place orders took effect. What eviction actions are prohibited while emergency COVID-19 orders are in effect? If adopted, SB 939 would add Section 1951.9 to the Civil Code. This section would make it unlawful to terminate a tenancy, serve notice to terminate a tenancy, use lockout or utility shutoff actions to terminate a tenancy or otherwise evict a tenant of commercial real property, including a business or nonprofit, during the pendency of the COVID-19 emergency order proclaimed by Governor Newsome on March 4, 2020. Exceptions apply if a tenant poses a threat to the property, other tenants or a person, business or other entity. Any violations of this eviction prohibition would be against public policy and unenforceable. Any eviction started after proclamation of the state of emergency but before the effective date is deemed void, against public policy and is unenforceable. Does SB 939 impose new penalties or remedies? Any landlord who harasses, mistreats or retaliates against a commercial tenant to force the tenant to abrogate the lease would be subject to a fine of $2,000 for each violation. Further, any such violation would be an unlawful business practice and an act of unfair competition under Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code and would be subject to all available remedies or penalties for those actions under state law. When is a commercial tenant required to pay unpaid rent due to COVID-19? If a commercial tenant fails to pay rent during the emergency COVID-19 order, the sum total of the past due rent must be paid within 12 months following the date of the end of the emergency proclamation, unless the commercial tenant has successfully negotiated an agreement with its landlord to pay the outstanding rent at a later date. Nonpayment of rent during the state of emergency cannot be used as grounds for eviction. Notwithstanding lease terms to the contrary, landlords may not impose late charges for rent that became due during the state of emergency. Are landlords required to provide notice of protections adopted under SB 939? Landlords would be required to provide notice to commercial tenants of the protections offered under SB 939 within 30 days of the effective date. SB 939 does not preempt local legislation or ordinances restricting the same or similar conduct which impose a more severe penalty for the same conduct. Local legislation or ordinances may impose additional notice requirements. Does SB 939 impose new protections for commercial tenants when negotiating lease modifications? If enacted, SB 939 would permit commercial tenants to open negotiations for new lease terms, and provide commercial tenants the ability to terminate the lease if those negotiations fail. A commercial tenant who wishes to modify its commercial lease, may engage in good faith negotiations with its landlord to modify any rent or economic requirement regardless of the term remaining on the lease. The commercial tenant must serve a notice on the landlord certifying that it meets the required criteria, along with the desired modifications. If the commercial tenant and landlord do not reach a mutually satisfactory agreement within 30 days, then within 10 days, the commercial tenant may terminate the lease without any liability for future rent, fees, or costs that otherwise may have been due under the lease by providing a written termination notice to the landlord. The commercial tenant would be required to pay previously due rent, in an amount no greater than the sum of the following: (1) the actual rent due during the emergency COVID-19 order, or a maximum of three months of the past due rent during that period, and (2) all rent incurred and unpaid during a time unrelated to the emergency COVID-19 order through the date of the termination notice. The payment is due within 12 months from date of the termination notice. The commercial tenant would be required to vacate the premises within 14 days of the landlord's receipt of the termination notice. Upon service of the notice, any lease, and any third party guaranties of the lease would terminate. If the landlord and commercial tenant reach an agreement to modify the lease, the commercial tenant would not have the option to later terminate the lease under this provision. When is the next Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting for SB 939? The Senate Judiciary Committee set a hearing for SB 939 on May 22, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The Senate will livestream the hearing on its website at Public comments or testimony may be submitted in writing to the Judiciary Committee by emailing Alternatively, the public may participate via telephone during the public comment period. Any changes to the Judicial Committee schedule may be found at: Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at or visit us at Rhonda Kreger is Senior Counsel on Newmeyer Dillion's transactional team at our Newport Beach office. Her practice focuses on all aspects of commercial real estate law, with a particular emphasis on the representation of residential developers, merchant builders and institutional investors. You can reach Rhonda at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    AB5 Construction Exemption - A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5's Three-Part Test

    May 18, 2020 —
    Construction companies have a unique opportunity to avoid the application of the restrictive new independent contractors' law that took effect this year. This article provides a checklist that will help construction companies determine whether their relationships with subcontractors qualify for this exemption. California’s Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), which went into effect Jan. 1, 2020, enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. Certain professions and industries are potentially exempt from this standard, including the construction industry. The ABC test does not apply to the relationship between a contractor and an individual performing work pursuant to a subcontractor in the construction industry if certain criteria are met. In order for the “construction exemption” to apply, the contractor must demonstrate that all of the following criteria are satisfied. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears
    Mr. Dillion may be contacted at

    Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

    February 10, 2020 —
    Is an insured (or putative insured) entitled to recover its legal expenses if it is successful in coverage litigation? In some states, no. In many other states, yes – based on either a statute or the common law. In New York, an insured may recover such expenses if it was “cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations,” and, while forced into that posture, the insured defeats the insurer’s claim. Mighty Midgets, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 389 N.E.2d 1080, 1085 (N.Y. 1979). As a corollary to that rule, the insured is not entitled to its expenses “in an affirmative action brought by [the insured] to settle its rights. . . .” Id. at 1085. Earlier this week, the New York federal court in United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Lux Maint. & Ren. Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2019) became the latest to apply the Mighty Midgets rule, awarding several insureds their legal expenses after defeating the insurer’s declaratory judgment action. In Lux, the CGL insurer of a façade-renovation contractor sued the contractor (its named insured) and several owners of a hospital (putative additional insureds) at which the façade-renovation work took place, claiming that the insurer did not owe a defense or indemnity to any of those companies in connection with an underlying bodily injury action brought by an employee of the contractor who was injured while performing the work. The insurer and the putative additional insureds filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the coverage issues, with the putative additional insureds also seeking to recover their legal expenses for defending against the insurer’s action. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that, based on the contractor’s agreement to provide coverage for the hospital owners, and a comparison between the underlying allegations and the policy, the insurer owed the hospital owners coverage as additional insureds to the contractor’s policy; the court also concluded that the insurer owed coverage for the contractor’s contractual defense and indemnity obligations to the hospital owners. After concluding that the insurer’s claim that it did not owe coverage lacked merit, the court turned to the additional insureds’ request for their legal expenses. The court examined the “well settled” rule under New York law “that an insured cannot recover his legal expenditure in a dispute with an insurer over coverage, even if the insurer loses and is obligated to provide coverage,” but also New York’s “limited exception” to that rule, “under which an insured who is ‘cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations, and who prevails on the merits, may recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against the insurer’s action.’ ” Lux, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805, at *18 (quoting Mighty Midgets, 389 N.E.2d at 1085). Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at Mr. Carroll may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    There's No Place Like Home

    March 02, 2020 —
    Two things that generally do not go well together, bridges and tornadoes, collided with unfortunate results on July 21, 2003. On that date, a tornado struck the Kinzua viaduct in northwestern Pennsylvania. The old bridge structure already had deteriorated foundation supports, which were then under repair. The tornado lifted parts of the bridge off its foundation, and more than half of the structure collapsed. Brian Brenner, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    It’s Time to Include PFAS in Every Property Related Release

    June 01, 2020 —
    While the federal government and states (including California) are working on establishing standards and how to manage the toxic chemicals known as PFAS (as defined below), certain states and banks are requiring testing for PFAS to approve no-further-action (NFA) determinations or to underwrite loans. PFAS do not easily fit within standard definitions of hazardous substances used in today’s agreements. Thus, if you want to ensure you and your successors are released for PFAS which later environmental testing may reveal, ensure such is specifically listed in your releases. What Are PFAS As depicted in the recent major-release movie Dark Waters, PFAS are a group of very stable man-made chemicals that are both toxic and ubiquitous. They are long-chain chemicals which means they do not naturally degrade easily. Reprinted courtesy of John Van Vlear, Newmeyer Dillion and Gregory Tross, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Vlear may be contacted at Mr. Tross may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of