• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois condominiums Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois casino resort Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois office building Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois landscaping construction Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois structural steel construction Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois retail construction Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois Subterranean parking Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois condominium Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois custom home Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois housing Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois parking structure Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois production housing Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois high-rise construction Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois multi family housing Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois low-income housing Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois Medical building Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois institutional building Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois townhome construction Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois mid-rise construction Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois hospital construction Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois tract home Building Consultant Oak Forest Illinois
    Oak Forest Illinois construction defect expert witnessOak Forest Illinois architectural engineering expert witnessOak Forest Illinois hospital construction expert witnessOak Forest Illinois concrete expert witnessOak Forest Illinois engineering consultantOak Forest Illinois building envelope expert witnessOak Forest Illinois roofing construction expert
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Oak Forest, 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 Consultant Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Oak Forest Illinois

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

    Building Consultant Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    SouthWest Suburban Home Builders Association
    Local # 1432
    10767 W 163rd Pl
    Orland Park, IL 60467

    Oak Forest Illinois Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Northern Illinois Home Builders Association Inc
    Local # 1434
    3695 Darlene Ct Ste 102
    Aurora, IL 60504

    Oak Forest Illinois Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Fox Valley
    Local # 1431
    PO Box 1146
    Saint Charles, IL 60174

    Oak Forest Illinois Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Chicago
    Local # 1425
    5999 S. New Wilke Rd Ste 104
    Rolling Meadows, IL 60008

    Oak Forest Illinois Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Kankakee
    Local # 1445
    221 S Schuyler Ave Ste B
    Kankakee, IL 60901

    Oak Forest Illinois Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of the Greater Rockford Area
    Local # 1465
    631 N Longwood St Suite 102
    Rockford, IL 61107

    Oak Forest Illinois Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Peoria
    Local # 1455
    1599 N Main Street
    East Peoria, IL 61611

    Oak Forest Illinois Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Oak Forest Illinois

    Delays in Filing Lead to Dismissal in Moisture Intrusion Lawsuit

    Dealing with Hazardous Substances on the Construction Site

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

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

    Suppliers of Inherently Dangerous Raw Materials Remain Excluded from the Protections of the Component Parts Doctrine

    Insurer Must Pay To Defend Product Defect Claims From Date Of Product Installation

    Montana Theater Threatened by Closure due to Building Safety

    Old Case Teaches New Tricks

    Save A Legal Fee? Sometimes You Better Talk With Your Construction Attorney

    Parol Evidence can be Used to Defeat Fraudulent Lien

    Quick Note: Third-Party Can Bring Common Law Bad Faith Claim

    The Contract Disputes Act: What Every Federal Government Contractor Should Know

    Should a Subcontractor provide bonds to a GC who is not himself bonded? (Bonding Agent Perspective)

    “Other Insurance” and Indemnity Provisions Determine Which Insurer Must Cover

    Concerns About On-the-job Safety Persist

    Hollywood Legend Betty Grable’s Former Home for Sale

    No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claims Against Contractor

    New Jersey Law regarding Prior Expert’s Testimony

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    Construction Defect Dispute Governed by Contract Disputes Act not yet Suited to being a "Suit"

    Windows and Lawsuits Fly at W Hotel

    ENR Northwest’s Top Contractors Survey Reveals Regional Uptick

    Life After McMillin: Do Negligence and Strict Liability Causes of Action for Construction Defects Still Exist?

    California Pipeline Disaster Brings More Scandal for PG&E

    Suit Limitation Provision Upheld

    Ohio Supreme Court Holds No Occurence Arises from Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

    Construction Up in United States

    The Brexit Effect on the Construction Industry

    Pollution Created by Business Does Not Deprive Insured of Coverage

    The Oregon Tort Claims Act (“OTCA”) Applies When a Duty Arises from Statute or Common Law and is Independent from The Terms of a Specific Contract. (OR)

    CGL Insurer’s Duty to Defend Insured During Pre-Suit 558 Process: Maybe?

    Are Construction Defect Claims Covered Under CGL Policies?

    After Elections, Infrastructure Talk Stirs Again

    CGL Policies and the Professional Liabilities Exclusion

    Follow Up on Continental Western v. Shay Construction

    Asbestos Client Alert: Court’s Exclusive Gatekeeper Role May not be Ignored or Shifted to a Jury

    Transition Study a Condo Board’s First Defense against Construction Defects

    Florida Law: Interplay of SIR and the Made-Whole Doctrine

    Quick Note: Independent Third-Party Spoliation Of Evidence Claim

    Does a Contractor (or Subcontractor) Have to Complete its Work to File a Mechanics Lien

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

    Sanctions of $1.6 Million Plus Imposed on Contractor for Fabricating Evidence

    Are Millennials Finally Moving Out On Their Own?

    White and Williams Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers

    First-Time Homebuyers Make Biggest Share of Deals in 17 Years

    Construction in Indian Country – What You Need To Know About Sovereign Immunity

    Excess Carrier's Declaratory Judgment Action Stayed While Underlying Case Still Pending

    Luxury Villa Fraudsters Jailed for Madeira Potato Field Scam

    Limiting Plaintiffs’ Claims to a Cause of Action for Violation of SB-800

    Court Calls Lease-Leaseback Project What it is: A Design-Bid-Build Project
    Corporate Profile


    The Oak Forest, Illinois Building Consultant 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. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Oak Forest'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
    Oak Forest, Illinois

    Sinking Buildings on the Rise?

    July 01, 2019 —
    By now everyone in the construction and insurance industries is familiar with the 58-story Millennium Tower building in San Francisco that has sunk 17 inches and tilted another 14 inches to the northwest. Another recent New York lawsuit alleges that a 58-story luxury Manhattan condo high-rise is also sinking and causing significant damage. With construction booming in the Southeast and other areas with questionable soils, sinking building cases may be on the rise. Given this reality, the issue of subsidence should be of paramount importance to every construction and insurance professional when insuring a project. Most insurance carriers will include a subsidence and/or other earth movement exclusion on a commercial general liability ("CGL") quote for insurance as a matter of course. Construction professionals (owners/developers, general contractors, and subcontractors) or their brokers may be under the mistaken impression that they have no choice but to accept these subsidence exclusions as part of a standard construction policy. This is not the case. To the contrary, most insurance carriers are willing to remove subsidence exclusions if the underwriters are provided with acceptable geotechnical/soils reports when considering the project. The insured construction professional often pushes back on the insurance carrier's request for soils reports because the insured sees the request as an unnecessary hassle, expense or unwelcome interference in the job. However, the carrier's soils review is designed to benefit everyone. If potential soils issues are discovered during the underwriting process they can be addressed at the outset of the project rather than after the project is built, which will typically cost substantially more to remedy. Moreover, a thorough analysis of the condition of the soils at the outset of the project allows the risk management team to recognize any potential issues and ensure that the proper coverage is obtained in order to provide protection down the road. Even if the insurance carrier charges more money to sign off on questionable soils after a review of the reports, the slight increase in premium is likely a worthwhile investment in the event of a subsidence loss. The lesson is that the insured should not blindly accept a subsidence exclusion and should negotiate its removal. The insured should provide its broker and the insurance carrier the information they need in order to make a fully-informed decision as it pertains to the soils. Once the insurance carrier has had the opportunity to review and sign off on the condition of the soil, the carrier should feel comfortable enough to remove any subsidence exclusions or other similar earth movement limitations. Subsidence is a relatively straightforward issue to deal with as long as the project team’s lawyers, brokers, risk managers and insurance company underwriters are working together toward the common goal of properly evaluating the risk and adequately insuring the project. This simple cooperative process between the entire risk management team could mean the difference between being covered or not covered in the event of a loss related to earth movement. Jason M. Adams, Esq. is Senior Counsel at Gibbs Giden representing construction professionals (owners/developers, contractors, architects, etc.) in the areas of Construction Law, Insurance Law and Risk Management, Common Interest Community Law (HOA) and Civil Litigation. Adams is also a licensed property and casualty insurance broker and certified Construction Risk & Insurance Specialist (CRIS). Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. Mr. Adams can be reached at The content contained herein is published online for informational purposes only, may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements, and does not constitute legal advice. Do not act on the information contained herein without seeking the advice of licensed counsel. The transmission of information by email, or any transmission or exchange of information over the Internet, or by any of the included links is not intended to create and does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. This publication may not be reproduced or used in whole or in part without written consent of the author. Copyright 2019 © Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Substitution Hearings Under California’s Listing Law

    March 04, 2019 —
    The next case, JMS Air Conditioning and Appliance Service, Inc. v. Santa Monica Community College District, 2nd District Court of Appeal, Case No. B284068 (December 17, 2018), provides an interesting behind-the-scenes look at substitution hearings under the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act. The Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act
    1. The Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (Public Contract Code Section 4100 et seq.), also commonly referred to as the “Listing Law,” requires that prime contractors on state and local public works projects “list” the following subcontractors in their bids:
    2. Subcontractors who are anticipated to perform work with a value in excess of 0.5% of the prime contractor’s total bid; and Subcontractors, on street, highway and bridge projects, who are anticipated to perform work with a value in excess of the greater of: (a) 0.5% of the prime contractor’s total bid; or (b) in excess of $10,000.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Quick Note: Third-Party Can Bring Common Law Bad Faith Claim

    July 01, 2019 —
    A third-party claimant may bring a common law bad faith claim against a defendant’s liability insurer. Mccullough v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, 2019 WL 2076192, *2 (S.D.Fla. 2019). “A bad faith claim may be brought by a third party absent an assignment from the [defendant] insured.” Id. This can only be done in the third-party bad faith context with the argument that the insurer’s “bad faith” conduct resulted in a judgment against the defendant-insured in excess of the policy limits. However, in any third-party bad faith claim (and, really, bad faith claim in general), coverage must first be determined under the policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    No Coverage for Sink Hole Loss

    June 18, 2019 —
    The federal district court found there was no coverage under the commercial property policy for loss suffered by the insured condominium association due to a sink hole. Bahama Bay II Condo. Ass'n. v. Untied Nat'l Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67487 (M.D. Fla. April 11, 2019). The plaintiff condominium association had thirteen buildings inside their complex. On December 9, 2016, a sinkhole appeared near Building 43. The building was vacated and declared unsafe. Plaintiff's board excused Building 43 owners from paying association dues. Plaintiff submitted a claim to the insurer for benefits under the policy. The insurer inspected and accepted coverage for Building 43 under the policy's Catastrophic Ground Cover Collapse (CGCC) provision and issued a check for $290,000 for immediate repairs. The insurer denied coverage for Buildings 42, 44, and 45; repairs to the foundation of all buildings, the retaining wall and outdoor fences; land, landscaping, and patios, uncollected association dues, and condominium unit owner property. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Construction Defect Dispute Governed by Contract Disputes Act not yet Suited to being a "Suit"

    June 25, 2019 —
    The Southern District of California recently held that a series of demands for a general contractor to investigate and repair several construction defects at a U.S. Army facility did not constitute a “suit” within the meaning of the general contractor’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy. In Harper Construction Co., Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., the U.S. Government hired Harper Construction Company (“Harper”) to construct a U.S. Army training facility for the Patriot Missile System in Fort Sill, Oklahoma. No. 18-cv-00471-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019). During the project, Harper hired Harper Mechanical Contractors (“Harper Mechanical”), an independent company, as a subcontractor “to perform demolition, grading, and other work at the Project.” After Harper completed the project, the government informed Harper of property damage at the project, “including, but not limited to, gypsum wallboard cracks and binding doors.” Harper attempted to repair the issues, but the problems continued. The issues were apparently the result of Harper Mechanical’s grading work. Subsequently, the government sent two letters requesting an investigation and asking Harper to “propose a plan to correct the issues.” As Harper undertook an investigation spanning multiple years, the government became increasingly frustrated with the delays. The government threatened to initiate “formal administrative recourse” and to demolish the project, forcing Harper to re-build from the ground up. It also sent Harper another letter requesting Harper submit a formal proposal to correct the issues. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Bennett may be contacted at

    Mississippi River Spends 40 Days At Flood Stage, Mayors Push for Infrastructure Funding

    June 18, 2019 —
    As record flooding continues across the Midwest, the region’s mayors and the Army Corps of Engineers are looking for solutions to mitigate future floods. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, ENR
    Mr. Yoders may be contacted at

    Restrictions On Out-Of-State Real Estate Brokers Being Challenged In Nevada

    April 10, 2019 —
    For years, the Nevada Real Estate Division (“NRED”) and its sub-entity, the Nevada Real Estate Commission (“NREC”), have been tasked with administering the licensing procedures applicable to real estate professionals in Nevada, as well as enforcement of the regulations governing business practices, advertising, commissions, license maintenance, and a host of other dayto-day parameters within which the profession operates. Within the past five years, however, the NREC has tasked itself with the publicly stated goal of “protecting” Nevada real estate licensees and the commissions they earn from out-of-state real estate professionals seeking to do business in the Silver State. While efforts to preserve local real estate opportunities for local brokers might seem sound, an international brokerage firm is challenging the foundation of that structure. If they win, the outcome could have huge implications on the real estate industry in Nevada. Businesses, here’s a breakdown of the existing structure and what the challenge is all about. The Existing Regulatory Structure Through amending their own regulations, the NRED and NREC have created a regulatory structure that:
    • Prohibits any non-Nevada licensed real estate broker from representing any seller (Nevada based or non-Nevada based) of any Nevada real estate;
    • Prohibits any non-Nevada licensed real estate broker from representing any Nevada resident in the purchase of Nevada real estate; and
    • Allows non-Nevada licensed real estate brokers to represent non-Nevada purchasers of Nevada real estate only if the out-of-state broker formally affiliates (and therefore shares commissions with) a resident Nevada-licensed broker.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aaron D. Lovaas, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
    Mr. Lovaas may be contacted at

    Sixth Circuit Holds that Some Official Actions Taken in the “Flint Water Crisis” Could Be Constitutional Due Process Violations

    March 27, 2019 —
    In what the Court of Appeals describes as “the infamous government-created environmental disaster known at the Flint Water Crisis,” a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that some of the government personnel responsible for this disaster may be liable, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for monetary damages based on the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The case is Guertin, et al., v. State of Michigan, et al., decided on January 4, 2019. On April 25, 2014, the City of Flint, MI, facing a financial crisis, agreed to switch its drinking water supply from the water provided by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department to untreated water available from the Flint River that would be treated in the waterworks owned and operated by the City. However, the City waterworks could not provide the needed treatment, which resulted in the corrosive Flint River water leaching lead out of the old Flint water pipes. Soon thereafter, a public health and environmental crisis enveloped Flint. Many lawsuits have been filed against many defendants, and many civil and criminal investigations have been opened. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at