BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expert
    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


    St. Petersburg Florida’s Tallest Condo Tower Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York

    Insurance Client Alert: Denial of Summary Judgment Does Not Automatically Establish Duty to Defend

    Brown and Caldwell Team with AECOM for Landmark Pure Water Southern California Program

    Medical Center Builder Sues Contracting Agent, Citing Costly Delays

    Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution

    Protect Your Right To Payment By Following Nedd

    Texas Mechanic’s Lien Law Update: New Law Brings a Little Relief for Subcontractors and a Lot of Relief for Design Professionals

    Insurer Must Defend Contractor Against Claims of Faulty Workmanship

    Kushners Abandon Property Bid as Pressures Mount Over Conflicts

    OSHA Releases COVID-19 Guidance

    Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

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

    Contractor Succeeds At the Supreme Court Against Public Owner – Obtaining Fee Award and Determination The City Acted In Bad Faith

    Repair of Fractured Girders Complete at Shuttered Salesforce Transit Center

    Deleted Emails Cost Company $3M in Sanctions

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    Mississippi Sues Over Public Health Lab Defects

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

    Massachusetts Pulls Phased Trigger On Its Statute of Repose

    Equities Favor Subrogating Insurer Over Subcontractor That Performed Defective Work

    Stadium Intended for the 2010 World Cup Still Not Ready

    Is It Time to Revisit Construction Defects in Kentucky?

    Insureds Survive Summary Judgment on Coverage for Hurricane Loss

    Florida Insurance Legislation Alert - Part I

    Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolute Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage For Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

    Recent Bad Faith Decisions in Florida Raise Concerns

    New Illinois Supreme Court Trigger Rule for CGL Personal Injury “Offenses” Could Have Costly Consequences for Policyholders

    The Future Looks Bright for Construction in 2015

    Property Owner Found Liable for Injuries to Worker of Unlicensed Contractor, Again

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies

    New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

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

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

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

    Construction Worker Falls to His Death at Kyle Field

    Texas Legislature Puts a Spear in Doctrine Making Contractor Warrantor of Owner Furnished Plans and Specifications

    Mechanic’s Liens- Big Exception

    Is it the End of the Story for Redevelopment in California?

    Undercover Sting Nabs Eleven Illegal Contractors in California

    California Ballot Initiative Seeks to Repeal Infrastructure Funding Bill

    Melissa Pang Elected Vice President of APABA-PA Board of Directors

    Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93

    Court of Federal Claims: Upstream Hurricane Harvey Case Will Proceed to Trial

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

    Construction Defects #10 On DBJ’s Top News Stories of 2015

    Depreciation of Labor in Calculating Actual Cash Value Against Public Policy

    U.S. Construction Value Flat at End of Summer

    California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies
    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. Leveraging 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

    Partner Jason Taylor and Senior Associate Danielle Kegley Successful in Appeal of Summary Disposition on Priority of Coverage Dispute in the Michigan Court of Appeals

    December 11, 2023 —
    In this appeal brought before the Michigan Court of Appeals, the appellate court ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s insurance carrier client (the “Carrier” or “Client”), affirming an award of summary disposition in favor of the Carrier in a coverage lawsuit. The coverage lawsuit involved a priority dispute between the Carrier and another insurer over which company’s policy had responsibility to cover the defense of their mutual insured, a heating and cooling contractor (the “Insured”) in an underlying lawsuit alleging carbon monoxide poisoning. The Carrier issued a contractor’s pollution liability policy and the other insurer issued a commercial general liability policy to the Insurer. Both the Carrier and the other insurer filed cross-motions for summary disposition in the trial court on the priority of coverage issue. The trial court granted the Client’s motion, holding that the CGL carrier was the primary insurer based on the language in the policies’ “other insurance” clauses. The trial court rejected the CGL carrier’s argument to apply the “total policy insuring intent” or “closest to the risk” tests—tests which Michigan courts have not adopted. Specifically, the court rejected the CGL carrier’s argument that the Client’s contractor’s pollution liability policy was more specifically tailored to the loss in the underlying lawsuit. The trial court also rejected CGL carrier’s alternative argument that the “other insurance” clauses in the policies were irreconcilable, requiring a pro rata allocation based on the respective limits of the policies. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman and Danielle K. Kegley, Traub Lieberman Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com Ms. Kegley may be contacted at dkegley@tlsslaw.com Read the full story...

    The Word “Estimate” in a Contract Matters as to a Completion Date

    February 12, 2024 —
    Language in a contract matters. The word “estimates” or “estimated” matters particularly when it comes to a date certain such as a substantial completion or completion date. Remember this. Here is an example. In Parque Towers Developers, LLC v. Pilac Management, Ltd., 49 Fla.L.Weekly D190a (Fla. 3d DCA 2024), a trial court held that the developer did not complete the construction of five condominium units by the date in the purchase agreements. The developer appealed because “[t]he agreements contain no date certain for the completion of the units, but rather include a clause that ‘Seller estimates it will substantially complete construction of the Unit, in the manner specified in this Agreement, by December 31, 2017, subject to extensions resulting from ‘Force Majeure (the ‘Outside Date’).’” Parque Towers, supra. Another provision in the purchase agreements stated, “[w]henver this Agreement requires Seller to complete or substantially complete any item of construction, that item will be understood to be complete or substantially complete when so completed or substantially completed in Seller’s opinion. Id. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    McDermott International and BP Team Arbitrate $535M LNG Site Dispute

    April 02, 2024 —
    BP and Kosmos Energy are seeking “maximum recoverable damages” of about $535 million in binding arbitration with contractor McDermott International over a claim that it failed to meet contract obligations on subsea pipeline installation for an estimated $4.8 billion liquefied natural gas project off Africa. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story...

    Blog Completes Sixteenth Year

    January 29, 2024 —
    Insurance Law Hawaii completes its sixteenth year this month. We began posting in December 2002, 1761 posts ago. The year 2023 has added 105 new posts. The goal is to keep readers in tune with new developments in insurance-related cases from Hawaii and across the country. This year included a big case handled successfully by our office regarding insurers attempt to gain reimbursement of defense costs for uncovered claims. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., et. al v. Bodell Construction Co., et. al, 2023 Haw. LEXIS 194 (Haw. Nov. 14, 2023). We will continue posting important coverage developments in the next year. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Wyncrest Commons: Commonly Used Progress Payments in Construction Contracts Do Not Render Them Installment Contracts

    December 11, 2023 —
    In BIL-JIM Construction Company, Inc. v. Wyncrest Commons, LP, 2023 WL 7276637 (Unpublished, decided November 3, 2023), the New Jersey Appellate Division was asked to consider two issues regarding the interpretation and application of a construction contract that utilized the standard form American Institute of Architects owner/contractor agreement (AIA Document A101-2007) (the “AIA Contract”). Specifically, it was asked to consider: 1) whether a modified AIA Contract was an “installment contract,” whereby each progress payment was subject to its own statute of limitations; and 2) whether and when work had been approved in the context of New Jersey’s Municipal Land Use Law. While the decision is presently unpublished, it provides guidance as to how form contracts utilizing the same or similar terms will be treated by New Jersey’s courts and is a reminder that the potential for future claims must be considered during contract negotiations. Discussion The primary issue in Wyncrest was whether an AIA Contract was an “installment contract,” and the remaining issues turned on the resolution of this question. Wyncrest, the owner for the project at issue, did not dispute that its contractor, BIL-JIM Construction Company, Inc., had not been fully paid for work that it had performed in connection with a construction project located in Ocean County, New Jersey. Instead, Wyncrest argued that because its AIA Contract with BIL-JIM required that invoices be presented and paid monthly, it constituted an “installment contract.” As such, older payments would be treated as individual transactions and were time barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court agreed with Wyncrest’s characterization of the AIA Contract as an “installment contract,” and found that BIL-JIM’s invoices were each subject to their own statute of limitations. However, the trial court disagreed with Wyncrest’s argument that BIL-JIM’s claim for retainage—which was submitted at the end of its work at the project—was time barred. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Benjamin J. Hochberg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Hochberg may be contacted at bhochberg@pecklaw.com

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    April 15, 2024 —
    If a tenant defaults under a commercial lease, Arizona law permits the landlord to re-take possession of the premises by locking out the defaulting tenant. However, if the landlord’s lockout is wrongful, the landlord may be liable for the damages the tenant sustains because of the wrongful lockout. To minimize such liability, here are some general best practices to follow when locking out a defaulting tenant:
    • Do Not Breach the Peace. It is vital when performing a lockout to not breach the peace. What constitutes a “breach of the peace” depends on the particular circumstances at hand. For example, if a tenant arrives during the lockout and becomes angry or threatens violence, the landlord should stop performing the lockout and return at a later time. As a general rule of thumb, it is best to perform lockouts in the early morning hours or in the late evening hours when the landlord is less likely to encounter the tenant.
    • Provide A Notice of Default. Many commercial leases require the landlord to provide a notice of default before the landlord can lock out a defaulting tenant. Check, double check, and triple check that the landlord followed the lease’s notice of default provisions correctly, including that the landlord sent the notices to all required parties in accordance with the time requirements set forth in the lease.
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Tighe, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Tighe may be contacted at ptighe@swlaw.com

    ABC Safety Report: Construction Companies Can Be Nearly 6 Times Safer Than the Industry Average Through Best Practices

    May 06, 2024 —
    WASHINGTON, April 30, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Associated Builders and Contractors today announced the findings from its 2024 Safety Performance Report, an annual guide to construction jobsite health and safety best practices. The report is unveiled to coincide with Construction Safety Week, May 6-10. The annual safety report also provides a comprehensive understanding of the impact of deploying ABC's STEP Safety Management System, which enables top-performing ABC members to achieve incident rates 576% safer than the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics construction industry average. Established in 1989, STEP provides contractors and suppliers with a robust, no-cost framework for measuring safety data and benchmarking with peers in the industry. ABC's research on more than 900 million work hours completed by participants in the construction, heavy construction, civil engineering and specialty trades in 2023 identified the following foundations of industry-leading safety best practices:
    • Top management engagement: Employer involvement at the highest level of company management produces a 54% reduction in total recordable incident rates, or TRIR, and a 52% reduction in days away, restricted or transferred rates, or DART rates.
    • Substance abuse prevention programs: Robust substance abuse prevention programs/policies with provisions for drug and alcohol testing where permitted lead to a 47% reduction in TRIR and a 48% reduction in DART rates.
    • New hire safety orientation: Companies that conduct an in-depth indoctrination of new employees into the safety culture, systems and processes based on a documented orientation process experience incident rates that are 45% lower than companies that limit their orientations to basic health and safety compliance topics.
    • Frequency of toolbox talks: Companies that conduct daily, 15-to-30-minute toolbox talks reduce TRIR and DART rates by 81% compared to companies that hold them monthly.
    The 2024 ABC Safety Performance Report is based on submissions of unique company data gathered from members that deployed during the 2023 STEP term, Jan. 15-Dec. 15. ABC collects each company's trailing indicator data as reported on its annual Occupational Safety and Health Administration Form 300A ("Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses") and its self-assessment of leading indicator practices from its STEP application. Each data point collected is sorted using statistically valid methodology developed by the BLS for its annual Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Survey and then combined to produce analyses of STEP member performance against BLS industry average incident rates. The report demonstrates that applying industry-leading processes dramatically improves health and safety performance among participants regardless of company size or type of work. Any company can participate in STEP. Visit abc.org/step to begin or continue your safety journey.

    Balancing Risk and Reward: The Complexities of Stadium Construction Projects

    April 15, 2024 —
    From grand designs to opening day, stadium construction projects present a captivating blend of high-profile opportunities and significant challenges and risks. Navigating this complex landscape is not easy, but when managed properly, the potential rewards, both in terms of reputation and finances, can make it a gamble worth taking. While each stadium project is different, some of the more common risks include:
    1. Securing adequate labor, materials and equipment based on the size of the project;
    2. Logistical concerns regarding the concurrent performance of multiple trade scopes on a single site;
    3. Protection of work in place from weather due to the large footprint of the stadium project;
    4. Cash flow issues caused by protracted change order processing, conflicting and/or onerous payment requirements from project financing entities, and reimbursement of considerable monthly general condition costs; and
    5. Meeting the schedule requirements for the project.
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gregory A. Eichorn, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Eichorn may be contacted at geichorn@pecklaw.com