BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestration
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Connecticut Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Fairfield Connecticut

    License required for electrical and plumbing trades. No state license for general contracting, however, must register with the State.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders & Remo Assn of Fairfield Co
    Local # 0780
    433 Meadow St
    Fairfield, CT 06824

    Fairfield Connecticut Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Eastern Connecticut
    Local # 0740
    20 Hartford Rd Suite 18
    Salem, CT 06420

    Fairfield Connecticut Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of New Haven Co
    Local # 0720
    2189 Silas Deane Highway
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Hartford Cty Inc
    Local # 0755
    2189 Silas Deane Hwy
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of NW Connecticut
    Local # 0710
    110 Brook St
    Torrington, CT 06790

    Fairfield Connecticut Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Connecticut (State)
    Local # 0700
    3 Regency Dr Ste 204
    Bloomfield, CT 06002

    Fairfield Connecticut Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Fairfield Connecticut


    Insurer Prevails on Summary Judgment for Bad Faith Claim

    Recovering Attorney’s Fees and Treble Damages in Washington DC Condominium Construction Defect Cases

    The Final Nail: Ongoing Repairs Do Not Toll the Statute of Repose

    Make Your Business Great Again: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    New World Cup Stadiums Failed at their First Trial

    Formal Request for Time Extension Not Always Required to Support Constructive Acceleration

    Summary Findings of the Fourth National Climate Assessment

    Fluor Agrees to $14.5M Fixed-Price Project Cost Pact with SEC

    ADP Says Payrolls at Companies in U.S. Increase 200,000

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

    Meritage Acquires Legendary Communities

    Hurricane Ian: Florida Expedites Road Work as Damage Comes Into Focus

    Experts Weigh In on Bilingual Best Practices for Jobsites

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Addresses Recurring Asbestos Coverage Issues

    Illinois Federal Court Determines if Damages Are Too Remote

    Contract Change # 10: Differing Site Conditions (law note)

    Product Manufacturers Beware: You May Be Subject to Jurisdiction in Massachusetts

    Texas Windstorm Insurance Agency Under Scrutiny

    Former Hoboken, New Jersey Mayor Disbarred for Taking Bribes

    Las Vegas Student Housing Developer Will Name Replacement Contractor

    Gilbert’s Plan for Downtown Detroit Has No Room for Jail

    U.S. Department of Justice Settles against Days Inn

    New York’s Highest Court Gives Insurers “an Incentive to Defend”

    Safety, Compliance and Productivity on the Jobsite

    Duty to Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    Misread of Other Insurance Clause Becomes Costly for Insurer

    Draft Federal Legislation Reinforces Advice to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses

    White Collar Overtime Regulations Temporarily Blocked

    Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s

    HOA Has No Claim to Extend Statute of Limitations in Construction Defect Case

    Thank You to Virginia Super Lawyers

    ASBCA Validates New Type of Claim Related to Unfavorable CPARS Review [i]

    The Heat Is On

    Skanska Found Negligent for Damages From Breakaway Barges

    White and Williams Recognized by BTI Consulting Group for Client Service

    The Difference Between Routine Document Destruction and Spoliation

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Will Not Address Trigger for DEP Environmental Cleanup Action at This Time

    UK's Biggest Construction Show Bans 'Promo Girls'

    Keep It Simple: Summarize (Voluminous Evidence, That Is...)

    Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit

    Musk Says ‘Chicago Express’ Tunnel Project Could Start Work in Months

    Ruling Dealing with Constructive Changes, Constructive Suspension, and the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

    New York Developer gets Reprieve in Leasehold Battle

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    When Coronavirus Cases Spike at Construction Jobsites

    A New Lawsuit Might Change the Real Estate Industry Forever

    Colorado Federal Court Confirms Consequetial Property Damage, But Finds No Coverage for Subcontractor

    Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions – Changes and Claims

    “Incidental” Versus “Direct” Third Party Beneficiaries Under Insurance Policies in Which a Party is Not an Additional Insured

    New Certification Requirements for Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns and Service-Disabled Veteran-owned Small Business Concerns Seeking Public Procurement Contracts
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Construction Expert Witness 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 Fairfield'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.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Court of Appeals Confirms that King County Superior Court’s Jury Selection Process Satisfies Due Process Requirements

    December 04, 2023 —
    Raymond Budd developed mesothelioma after working with a drywall product called “joint compound” from 1962 to 1972. He sued Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. and others for damages, contending that the company’s joint compound caused his illness. A jury returned a verdict in Budd’s favor and awarded him nearly $13.5 million. Kaiser appealed, claiming (1) insufficient randomness in the jury-selection process, (2) erroneous transcription of expert testimony, (3) lack of proximate causation, (4) lack of medical causation, (5) an improper jury instruction on defective design, (6) improper exclusion of sexual battery and marital discord evidence, (7) improper admission of post-exposure evidence, (8) improper exclusion of regulatory provisions, and (9) a failure to link its product to Budd’s disease. The Court of Appeals, Division 1, affirmed the verdict in favor of Budd. Though all of the nine bases for error raised by Kaiser merit discussion, the jury-selection process issue is most probative here. Kaiser made three challenges against the jury selection process. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

    Unpredictable Power Surges Threaten US Grid — And Your Home

    April 08, 2024 —
    Paul LeBlanc was barefoot when he stepped outside that morning. He was taking the trash out when he saw the red glow of flames engulfing a nearby home. A former firefighter, LeBlanc grabbed his shoes before racing across the street. He smashed a window, then rushed inside. The only person believed to be home was a teenage boy who had already escaped, luckily with just minor burns. Alarms blared “fire” loudly, again and again, blasting from homes through the area. “I’ve been in buildings without protection before — I just wanted to make sure no one was stuck in there,” said LeBlanc, who spent more than three decades as a firefighter before retiring. The damage to the Alonge family’s four-bedroom home built in the early 1800s was so bad they haven’t been able to return since the blaze in June. The source of the conflagration in Waltham, Massachusetts, came from a facility about 2 miles west of the home. An electric substation, which had been dealing with a rodent infestation, had a sudden, unstable surge in voltage. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Naureen S Malik, Bloomberg

    Federal Magistrate Judge Recommends Rescission of Policies

    February 12, 2024 —
    In the recent case of Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. 142 Driggs LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220393, Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recommended granting the insurer's default judgment and holding that of three policies issued to 142 Driggs LLC ("Driggs") be rescinded ab initio. Driggs had represented on its insurance applications that it did not provide parking to anyone other than itself, tenants, and its guests at the subject insured premises. However, Union Mutual learned that Driggs had been renting out three garages to non-tenants. Second, Driggs represented that the mercantile square footage was around 1,000 square feet, when in actuality, it was larger than allowed under the policies. Union Mutual provided underwriting guidelines in connection with its default motion, which state that "parking provided for anyone other than the insured, tenants and their guests," presents an "unacceptable risk." The guidelines also state that answering yes to any "preliminary application questions (which presumably included those regarding mercantile square footage and parking) is an "unacceptable risk." The court held that these guidelines supported a finding that Driggs made material misrepresentation and that Union Mutual relied on these misrepresentations in issuing the policies. The court, as such, recommended that the policies at issue be rescinded from inception. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

    Subrogation Waiver Unconscionable in Residential Fuel Delivery Contract

    April 29, 2024 —
    In a matter of first impression, the Superior Court of Connecticut (Superior Court), in American Commerce Ins., Co. v. Eastern Fuel Corp., No. CV-206109168-S, 2024 Conn. Super. LEXIS 380, held that a waiver of subrogation provision in a consumer fuel service/delivery contract violated public policy. The Superior Court overruled the motion for summary judgment filed by Eastern Fuel Corporation (Eastern) and determined that the clause was impermissible as the contract was entered into by two parties with unequal bargaining power. American Commerce Insurance Company (American) provided property insurance to Arlene and James Hillas (the Insureds) for their home in Woodbridge, Connecticut. The Insureds hired Eastern to service their heating system on or around October 25, 2018. The service work at the property included inspecting the oil filters and flushing the fuel lines. On November 1, 2018, when the Insureds turned the heating system on for the first time that season, the two oil tanks on the property were allegedly full. After a series of deliveries, claims that the oil levels were lower than expected, discovering oil staining on the floor and Eastern’s replacement of the oil lines, Eastern delivered another 429 gallons. However, after the delivery, additional leaks were discovered relating to the oil line replacements. Ultimately, the Insureds submitted a claim to American and American paid in excess of $59,000 for the damage incurred. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan A. Bennett, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Bennett may be contacted at bennettr@whiteandwilliams.com

    Insurer’s Broad Duty to Defend in Oregon, and the Recent Ruling in State of Oregon v. Pacific Indemnity Company

    January 02, 2024 —
    Oregon law mandates a broad duty to defend, requiring insurers to provide legal representation to their policyholders whenever there is a potential for coverage under the policy. The significance of this broad interpretation means that an insurer has a duty to defend an insured even in situations where the alleged facts only imply a covered claim, and even in situations where the underlying claim is ultimately not covered by the policy. The insurer’s duty to defend is triggered if the allegations of the complaint, reasonably interpreted, could result in the insured being held liable for damages covered by the policy. This is referred to as the “four-corners” rule; it is also sometimes referred to as the eight-corners rule (for the four corners of the complaint plus the four corners of the policy). Oregon’s adoption of a broad interpretation of the duty to defend affirmatively places the onus on insurers to err on the side of coverage. This broad duty to defend is based on the principle that an insured should not have to bear the expense of defending a lawsuit that the insurer may ultimately have to pay for. The duty to defend is also important because it helps ensure that insureds have access to legal representation when faced with a lawsuit. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Keith Sparks, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Sparks may be contacted at keith.sparks@acslawyers.com

    White and Williams Celebrates 125th Anniversary

    March 04, 2024 —
    White and Williams LLP, a global-reaching law firm headquartered in Philadelphia, PA, is celebrating its 125th Anniversary. Since its founding in 1899, the Firm has grown to two hundred lawyers with offices in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania. “We are proud to celebrate our 125th anniversary. We are grateful to all of our clients for the trust that they place in our firm to handle their important litigation and transactional matters. The partnership we enjoy with our clients is special and a source of great pride to all of us at White and Williams. We are deeply committed to the success of our clients' goals and objectives,” stated Tim Davis, Managing Partner. “We look forward to celebrating this historic milestone with our clients, attorneys, staff and alumni throughout 2024,” added Davis. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Even Fraud in the Inducement is Tough in Construction

    November 06, 2023 —
    I have discussed how hard it is in the Commonwealth of Virginia to make out a claim for fraud when a construction contract is involved. On limited exception is where a claim for “fraud in the inducement” is involved. Essentially, such a claim states that one party was hoodwinked into entering the contract in the first place. Because of the initial fraud (for instance misrepresenting the class or existence of a contractor’s license), the courts may bypass the terms of the contract and allow a claim for fraud to go forward. While you may think that this would lead to many claims making it past a Motion to Dismiss, at least one court here in Virginia makes it clear that such claims will not be taken lightly and must be supported by specific and substantial allegations that would support more than just “advertising” or opinion. In County of Grayson v. Ra-Tech Services Inc., the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia reviewed an amended complaint from the Plaintiff seeking to make out a claim for fraud in the inducement based upon the defendant’s statements in support of a proposal that certain brands of equipment would be used. The Court further considered general allegations that the Defendant never intended to provide those particular brands of equipment. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

    November 13, 2023 —
    In order for a plaintiff to prove a defendant is negligent, the plaintiff must prove the defendant (1) owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the resulting monetary damage. However, for both plaintiffs and defendants it is not an all or nothing game in California. This is because California is a pure Comparative Negligence state. California’s Comparative Negligence law provides that even if a plaintiff is deemed 99% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 1% in damages from a defendant. Thus, even if a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault for the incident, the plaintiff could still recover some monetary amount, or the defendant will still have to pay plaintiff, depending on how you see it. In most instances, a jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party. Just as a plaintiff must prove he/she/its negligence case against a defendant, if the defendant claims plaintiff was partially responsible for the incident, the defendant must prove plaintiff was also negligent and said negligence contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. The total amount of monetary responsibility distributed among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%. As crazy as it may sound, a plaintiff found to be 99.9% at fault, is still entitled to recover 0.01% from a defendant in California. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Yaron Shaham, Kahana Feld
    Mr. Shaham may be contacted at yshaham@kahanafeld.com