BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas office building Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas custom homes Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas multi family housing Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas structural steel construction Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas landscaping construction Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas townhome construction Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas parking structure Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas low-income housing Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas tract home Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas retail construction Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas industrial building Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas condominium Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas condominiums Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas hospital construction Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas production housing Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas custom home Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas Subterranean parking Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas Medical building Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas high-rise construction Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas housing Building Consultant Pawnee Rock Kansas
    Pawnee Rock Kansas building expertPawnee Rock Kansas expert witness structural engineerPawnee Rock Kansas engineering consultantPawnee Rock Kansas structural engineering expert witnessesPawnee Rock Kansas construction expert witnessesPawnee Rock Kansas construction defect expert witnessPawnee Rock Kansas construction expert testimony
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Pawnee Rock, 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 Pawnee Rock Kansas

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


    Building Consultant Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    McPherson Area Contractors Association
    Local # 1735
    PO Box 38
    McPherson, KS 67460
    Pawnee Rock Kansas Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Pawnee Rock Kansas Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Pawnee Rock Kansas Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Pawnee Rock Kansas Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Pawnee Rock Kansas Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Pawnee Rock Kansas Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Pawnee Rock Kansas Building Consultant 10/ 10


    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Pawnee Rock Kansas


    Reconciling Prompt Payments and Withholding of Retention Payments

    Prime Contractor & Surety’s Recovery of Attorney’s Fees in Miller Act Lawsuit

    Flood Policy Does Not Cover Debris Removal from Property

    A Year Later, Homeowners Still Repairing Damage from Sandy

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    New York vs. Miami: The $50 Million Penthouse Battle From Zaha Hadid

    New Jersey Construction Worker Sentenced for Home Repair Fraud

    Will COVID-19 Permanently Shift the Balance between Work from Home and the Workplace?

    General Contractor/Developer May Not Rely on the Homeowner Protection Act to Avoid a Waiver of Consequential Damages in an AIA Contract

    Quick Note: Expert Testimony – Back to the Frye Test in Florida

    District Court's Ruling Affirmed in TCD v American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

    New York Condominium Association Files Construction Defect Suit

    AEM Pursuing ISO Standard for Earthmoving Grade-Control Data

    Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects

    Haight Welcomes Robert S. Rucci

    Sureties do not Issue Bonds Risk-Free to the Bond-Principal

    Unfortunate Event Test Leads to Three Occurrences

    Disgruntled Online Reviews of Attorney by Disgruntled Former Client Ordered Removed from Yelp.com

    Venue for Suing Public Payment Bond

    Advice to Georgia Homeowners with Construction Defects

    Home Building Up in Kansas City

    Manhattan Vacancies Rise in Epicenter Shift: Real Estate

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    Vacation Rentals: Liability of the Owner for Injury Suffered by the Renter

    California to Build ‘Total Disaster City’ for Training

    Ahlers, Cressman & Sleight PLLC Ranked Top Washington Law Firm By Construction Executive

    In Pricey California, Renters Near Respite From Landlord Gouging

    Arizona – New Discovery Rules

    Do Construction Contracts and Fraud Mix After All?

    West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar Returns to Anaheim May 15th & 16th

    Using the Prevention Doctrine

    Flood Coverage Denied Based on Failure to Submit Proof of Loss

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

    ALERT: COVID-19 / Coronavirus-Related Ransomware and Phishing Attacks

    Lakewood Introduced City Ordinance to Battle Colorado’s CD Law

    Is Your Home Improvement Contract Putting You At Risk?

    Contractual Indemnification Limitation on Florida Public Projects

    Understanding the Miller Act

    San Diego County Considering Updates to Green Building Code

    20 Years of BHA at West Coast Casualty's CD Seminar: Chronicling BHA's Innovative Exhibits

    Case-Shiller Redo Shows Less Severe U.S. Home-Price Slump

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Gets Construction Defect Bill to Committee

    South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies

    JD Supra’s 2017 Reader’s Choice Awards

    New York Court of Appeals Addresses Choice of Law Challenges

    Arizona Rooftop Safety: Is it Adequate or Substandard?

    A Third of U.S. Homebuyers Are Bidding Sight Unseen

    Golden Gate Bridge's $76 Million Suicide Nets Near Approval

    Best U.S. Home Sales Since 2007 Show Momentum in Housing Market

    Construction Defects Checklist
    Corporate Profile

    PAWNEE ROCK KANSAS BUILDING CONSULTANT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Pawnee Rock, Kansas Building Consultant Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Consultant News & Info
    Pawnee Rock, Kansas

    Risk-Shifting Tactics for Construction Contracts

    February 24, 2020 —
    Anyone who has worked in the construction industry is familiar with the financial risks involved. With thin margins, cash flow issues and the litany of potential claims and damages that can arise, contractors need to be able to manage that risk properly. There is the right way of going about it, and there's a wrong way. Unfortunately, the wrong way (which involves using leverage and shifting risk to other parties) is the more prevalent approach. There are different contractual tactics employed by owners and general contractors alike to shift financial risk to other parties. Why is construction so financially risky? There are a few different reasons there is so much risk involved. First and foremost, the construction payment chain itself is inherently risky. Owners and lenders release project funds and trust that the money will reach everyone on the job. But that can’t happen unless each link in the payment chain passes payment to the next. That's a lot of trust for an industry that's not particularly known for it. Another reason is how construction projects begin. Upfront payment is rare in this industry. This leads to floating the initial costs, extending credit and potentially borrowing money to do so. And those who typically bear this burden, lower-tier subs and suppliers, are the least equipped for that level of risk. Reprinted courtesy of Nate Budde, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Budde may be contacted at nate@levelset.com

    Once Again: Contract Terms Matter

    May 11, 2020 —
    I know, you’ve heard this over and over again here at Construction Law Musings: courts in Virginia will interpret a contract strictly and in a manner that gives meaning to its unambiguous terms. A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court, White Oak Power Constructors v. Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, reinforces this point. The basic facts of the case relevant to this discussion and the Court’s opinion are these. Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) hired White Oak Power Constructors (White Oak) to build a natural gas power plant. The contract between ODEC and White Oak provided for liquidated damages for delay and also contained a risk of loss provision making ODEC responsible for certain losses or damages due to property damage at the plant. I highly recommend that you read the facts of the case in full to get the details of the terms of these clauses. Needless to say (or this case wouldn’t be the subject of a construction law blog), the project ran past completion date and liquidated damages were assessed to the tune of more than $50,000,000.00. The delay was alleged to have been caused in substantial part by property damage due to weather, fire, and ice among other causes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    CISA Clarifies – Construction is Part of Critical Infrastructure Activities

    April 20, 2020 —
    After ongoing confusion by many over whether construction should be considered part of the “essential business,” during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued an updated Coronavirus Guidance for America on March 28, 2020 to clarify construction’s critical role in supporting essential infrastructure. CISA’s initial advisory list referenced construction in regard to some areas such as energy and wastewater treatment, but it was unclear as to the whole of the construction industry. CISA’s update clarified that construction activities are included in its list of essential critical infrastructure workers. This new federal guidance should remove the ambiguity that led to varying responses by state and local officials halting some construction. The guidance clarifies that construction and related activities – including the manufacture and supply/delivery of supplies and equipment, permitting, safety, and inspections of projects – are covered as part of the critical infrastructure and economic activities. The ongoing challenge will be for construction activities to proceed in a way that protects workers and the general public from the spread of coronavirus. However, contractors are always resourceful and have been implementing safety measures effectively on projects with an unwavering commitment to safety and are ready to meet this challenge. In addition to following the guidance from the CDC, we recommend that contractors implement a comprehensive safety program for their employees as well as for all parties that come onto the jobsite. It is critical that contractors have clear a clear plan for communications with their teams to ensure compliance with the CDC recommendations. This should include what has recently become standard protocol or social distancing, not hosting large group meetings and conducting meetings online or via conference call, maintaining a six-foot distance between people, discouraging hand-shaking or other contact, not sharing tools, and sanitizing reusable PPE. Contractors also should also be sure to place safety posters about “How to Protect Yourself” where they can be readily seen and encourage staying home when sick, cough and sneeze etiquette, and hand hygiene at the entrance of a jobsite. We also recommend heightened site security including interviewing anyone coming to the jobsite. Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees and Ernest Isola, Gordon & Rees Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@grsm.com Mr. Isola may be contacted at eisola@grsm.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York

    March 09, 2020 —
    Insurance policies typically impose, on the insured, a duty to cooperate with the insurer during investigation and litigation of a claim. Non-cooperation can be grounds for denying coverage. This begs the question: what constitutes non-cooperation? Recently, a New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision that failure by an employee of the insured to show up for three court-ordered depositions did not rise to the level of “willful and avowed obstruction” and therefore, the insurer could not deny coverage on the basis of non-cooperation. See Foddrell v. Utica First Insurance Co., 178 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). In so holding, the Foddrell court applied the Thrasher test: “To effectively deny coverage based upon lack of cooperation, an insurance carrier must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insured were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his or her cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction.” Id.; see Thrasher v. U. S. Liab. Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.2d 159, 167 (1967). Thomas Foddrell’s suit against Utica First Insurance Company (“Utica First”) stemmed from his personal injury suit against Janey & Rana Construction Corporation (“J&R” (Utica First’s insured). During that lawsuit, J&R’s principal, Gardeep Singh, failed to appear for two court-ordered depositions. After his failure to appear at those depositions, Utica First sent an investigator to inform Singh that he was scheduled for a third deposition. Singh responded to the investigator that he would speak with J&R’s attorneys about the matter. Ultimately, Singh did not appear for the third court-ordered deposition. In response to Singh’s repeated failure to appear for the depositions, Utica First sent Singh a letter advising him that because of his lack of cooperation, Utica would no longer agree to indemnify J&R. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan G. Nelson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Mr. Nelson may be contacted at rgn@sdvlaw.com

    Navigating Abandonment of a Construction Project

    March 02, 2020 —
    No construction or real estate developments goes completely as planned. Despite the expectation that modifications will likely be necessary to finalize a project, far too many parties suffer losses related to these projects. In California, abandonment of a project without legal excuse gives rise to a legal claim. An abandonment occurs if there was a material failure to complete any construction project or operation for the price stated in the contract or in any modification of the contact. If abandonment occurs, litigation likely follows. Disputes most commonly arise when the parties fail to retain a paper trail. Therefore, to limit litigation, document everything. Change orders can offer protection, but they must be in writing. Handshakes or oral promises are not sufficient. Rather, obtain written agreements signed by the contractor, and retain all documentation provided by the contractor, including invoices, receipts, work estimates and change orders. If the construction project has been abandoned, take photographs and/or videos of the job as it appears. To mitigate damages, preserve any leftover materials that a new contractor may be able to use. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara

    Two More Lawsuits Filed Over COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

    April 13, 2020 —
    Two more lawsuits were filed yesterday concerning business interruption losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs, the Chickasaw and Choctaw nations, filed their lawsuits, copies of which can be found here and here, in Oklahoma state court against a litany of property insurers, led by AIG. The lawsuits seek an order that any financial losses suffered by the nations’ casinos, restaurants and other businesses as a result of the coronavirus pandemic are covered by the nations’ insurance policies. According to the complaints:
    On or about March of 2020, the United States of America became infected by COVID 19 resulting in a pandemic. As a result of this pandemic and infection, the Nation’s Property sustained direct physical loss or damage and will continue to sustain direct physical loss or damage covered by the policies, including but not limited to business interruption, extra expense, interruption by civil authority, limitations on ingress and egress, and expenses to reduce loss. As a direct result of this pandemic and infection, the Nation’s Property has been damaged, as described above, and cannot be used for its intended purpose.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
    Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

    Everyone’s Working From Home Due to the Coronavirus – Is There Insurance Coverage for a Data Breach?

    May 18, 2020 —
    Most organizations are now requiring that their employees work from home (“WFH”) with the ongoing COVID-19 (commonly referred to as the Coronavirus) pandemic. These remote working arrangements provide new opportunities for hackers to infiltrate computer systems, and not surprisingly, attempted cyber attacks are on the rise. Given the rapid deployment of employees being forced to work from home, many employees are using their personal laptops, tablets and other devices to complete their work. The use of such personal devices increases the risk to network systems, including a potential breach or data loss. However, in the event of a breach or other incident, there may be limitations in your cyber liability insurance policy based upon the type of hardware being used. Businesses need to be proactive to protect themselves from attacks by practicing vigilant cyber safety, and also reviewing their insurance policies in detail for coverage considerations prior to the occurrence of any cyber incident. Reprinted courtesy of Heather H. Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion and Jeffrey M. Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Congress Relaxes Several PPP Loan Requirements

    June 15, 2020 —
    On June 3, 2020, Congress passed the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act ("Act") which does exactly what it means to do: provide flexibility for PPP loan recipients. President Trump is expected to sign the bill into law within the week. The Act extends the "covered period" for Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") loans from the original eight weeks to 24 weeks or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier. This extension provides much needed reprieve to small businesses who can utilize these funds to weather the economic effects of the Coronavirus Pandemic through 2020. The Act also revises the limitations on how small businesses utilize their PPP loans. While the CARES Act originally required 75% of the PPP loan to be used for payroll costs, this number has now been reduced to 60%. This means that up to 40% of the PPP loan can be used to cover mortgage obligations, rent, and other covered utility payments. The PPP loan payment deferral period has also been extended to align with the date on which the PPP loan's forgiveness amount is remitted to the lender. This should provide more certainty to small businesses on their payback obligations, if any. Recently, the Small Business Administration also released loan forgiveness applications to assist a business in calculating their loan forgiveness. While the SBA will likely revise it with the Act's passing, small businesses should look at the application's framework to prepare for submitting their loan forgiveness requests in the future. Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at NDcovid19response@ndlf.com or visit us at www.newmeyerdillion.com/covid-19-multidisciplinary-task-force/. Reprinted courtesy of Greg Tross, Newmeyer Dillion and Michael Krueger, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Tross may be contacted at greg.tross@ndlf.com Mr. Krueger may be contacted at michael.krueger@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of