• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultant
    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

    Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage

    Court Rules in Favor of Treasure Island Developers in Environmental Case

    Connecticutt Class Action on Collapse Claims Faces Motion to Dismiss

    The Shifting Sands of Alternative Dispute Resolution

    Water Damage: Construction’s Often Unnoticed Threat

    GA Federal Court Holds That Jury, Not Judge, Generally Must Decide Whether Notice Was Given “As Soon as Practicable” Under First-Party Property Damage Policies

    New York Restrictions on Flow Through Provision in Subcontracts

    Boston Nonprofit Wants to Put Grown-Ups in Dorms

    Traub Lieberman Team Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Client Under Florida’s Newly Implemented Summary Judgment Standard

    No Coverage for Additional Insured

    Are You Satisfying WISHA Standards?

    New York’s Highest Court Reverses Lower Court Ruling That Imposed Erroneous Timeliness Requirement For Disclaimers of Coverage

    More thoughts on Virginia Mechanic’s Liens

    Texas City Pulls Plug on Fossil Fuels With Shift to Solar

    NAHB Speaks Out Against the Clean Water Act Expansion

    Colorado’s Need for Condos May Spark Construction Defect Law Reform

    Georgia Court Reaffirms Construction Defect Decision

    Los Angeles Delays ‘Mansion Tax’ Spending Amid Legal Fight

    Eighth Circuit Affirms Judgment for Bad Faith after Insured's Home Destroyed by Fire

    The Power of Planning: Four Key Themes for Mitigating Risk in Construction

    Excessive Corrosion Cause of Ohio State Fair Ride Accident

    Common Law Indemnification - A Primer

    Anti-Fracking Win in N.Y. Court May Deal Blow to Industry

    A Murder in Honduras Reveals the Dark Side of Clean Energy

    Look Out! Texas Building Shedding Marble Panels

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorney Alan Packer Selected to the 2017 Northern California Super Lawyers List

    Court of Appeals Rules that HOA Lien is not Spurious, Despite Claim that Annexation was Invalid

    Coverage Issues: When You Need Your Own Lawyer in a Construction Defect Suit

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Declarant Consent Provision to Amend Arbitration Out of Declarations

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (02/15/23) – Proptech Solutions, Supply Chain Pivots, and the Inflation Reduction Act

    Construction Slow to Begin in Superstorm Sandy Cases

    New Jersey Courts Speed Up Sandy Litigation

    In Review: SCOTUS Environmental and Administrative Decisions in the 2020 Term

    “If It Walks Like A Duck . . .” – Expert Testimony Not Always Required In Realtor Malpractice Cases Where Alleged Breach Of Duty Can Be Easily Understood By Lay Persons

    Holding the Bag for Pre-Tender Defense Costs

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Finds Insured AOAO Not Liable for Securing Inadequate Insurance

    NTSB Faults Maintenance, Inspection Oversight for Fern Hollow Bridge Collapse

    Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

    How the Jury Divided $112M in Seattle Crane Collapse Damages

    Virginia Chinese Drywall and pollution exclusion

    Reminder: In Court (as in life) the Worst Thing You Can Do Is Not Show Up

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Reject Collapse Coverage Denied

    Be Careful When Walking Off of a Construction Project

    Groundbreaking on New Boulder Neighborhood

    No Escape: California Court of Appeals Gives a Primary CGL Insurer’s “Other Insurance” Clause Two Thumbs Down

    Investigation Continues on Children Drowning at Construction Site

    Feds Used Wire to Crack Las Vegas HOA Scam

    “To Indemnify, or Not to Indemnify, that is the Question: California Court of Appeal Addresses Active Negligence in Indemnity Provisions”

    Contractor’s Charge Of Improvements To Real Property Not Required For Laborers To Have Lien Rights

    What Will the 2024 Construction Economy Look Like?
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Toronto Skyscraper With $1.2 Billion of Debt Has Been Put in Receivership

    November 16, 2023 —
    A landmark condominium project in one of Toronto’s ritziest neighborhoods has been put into receivership after construction delays and cost overruns. Construction of the 85-story tower will be taken over by a court-appointed receiver after its owners, developer Sam Mizrahi and investor Jenny Coco, defaulted on part of the project’s nearly C$1.7 billion in debt ($1.2 billion), according to a Wednesday order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Two funds run by South Korea-based IGIS Asset Management Co. applied for the receivership. Another IGIS fund will extend at least another C$315 million to continue work on the project, court documents said. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ari Altstedter, Bloomberg

    Let’s Talk About a Statutory First-Party Bad Faith Claim Against an Insurer

    February 19, 2024 —
    Let’s talk about a statutory first-party bad faith claim against an insurer under Florida law. A recent opinion, discussed below, does a nice job providing a synopsis of a first-party statutory bad faith claim against an insurer: The Florida Legislature created the first-party bad faith cause of action by enacting section 624.155, Florida Statutes, which imposes a duty on insurers to settle their policyholders’ claims in good faith. The statutory obligation on the insurer is to timely evaluate and pay benefits owed under the insurance policy. The damages recoverable by the insured in a bad faith action are those amounts that are the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the insurer’s bad faith in resolving a claim, which include consequential damages. “[A] statutory bad faith claim under section 624.155 is ripe for litigation when there has been (1) a determination of the insurer’s liability for coverage; (2) a determination of the extent of the insured’s damages; and (3) the required [civil remedy] notice is filed pursuant to section 624.155(3)(a).” Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle, Eric D. Suben, and Justyn Verzillo Secure Dismissal of All Claims in a Premises Liability Case

    November 16, 2023 —
    On an appeal of an order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint in a slip-and-fall action commenced in Kings County Supreme Court, Traub Lieberman attorneys Lisa M. Rolle, Eric D. Suben, and Justyn Verzillo successfully secured dismissal of all claims by the Appellate Division, Second Department, on behalf of Traub Lieberman’s client. The lawsuit sought to recover damages arising out of injuries the Plaintiff allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell in the shower of a rental property owned by the Defendant, a limited liability company. Plaintiff alleged that the subject shower was defective, and the Defendant negligent, based on the absence of non-slip surfacing and grab bars in the shower. Aside from premises liability (negligence), Plaintiffs asserted eight other causes of action, including gross negligence, breach of warranty of habitability, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, alter-ego liability, loss of consortium, and for declaratory judgment. The judge in Supreme Court denied Traub Lieberman’s motion to dismiss on behalf of Defendant, citing as the sole reason that the affidavits submitted with the motion were unsigned, and ignoring Traub Lieberman’s arguments pointing out the glaring facial deficiencies of Plaintiff’s pleading and that the signed affidavits were in fact submitted before the return date. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman, Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman and Justyn Verzillo, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at Mr. Suben may be contacted at Mr. Verzillo may be contacted at Read the full story...

    Sweat the Small Stuff – Don’t Overlook These Three (3) Clauses When Negotiating Your Construction Contract

    April 08, 2024 —
    Reviewing and understanding the terms of your construction contract before signing on the dotted line (ideally with counsel involved) is an obvious best practice – whether you are owner, general contractor, design-professional or down-tier subcontractor or supplier. Typically, during this review process, parties pay closest attention to terms relating to price, scope, schedule, insurance, indemnification, and damages. And rightfully so, as these are just some of the most fundamental and important clauses of any construction contract. But during this review and understanding process, parties often overlook and fail to fully review and understand several notably important contract provisions (other than the examples above) which can have just as significant an impact on the project and even unintended consequences once construction starts. This article discusses three (3) of these often-overlooked provisions which should also be carefully reviewed to ensure the project runs smoothly and to avoid unintended consequences or even disputes (and litigation) during construction:
    1. Incorporation by reference clause;
    2. Order of precedence or higher standard clause; and
    3. Choice of law clause.
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bill Shaughnessy, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Mr. Shaughnessy may be contacted at

    New Survey Reveals Present-Day Risks of Asbestos Exposure in America - 38% in High-Risk Jobs, 47% Vulnerable through Second-Hand Exposure

    April 08, 2024 —
    AUSTIN, April 04, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A recent nationwide survey conducted on the risks of asbestos in America revealed that 38% of respondents have worked in high-risk industries where asbestos was present, while 47% have experienced indirect exposure through family members employed in these high-risk environments. The survey results reflect the fact that, despite the EPA's recent ban on ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, the threat of exposure still looms large in the US, underscoring the urgent need for continued vigilance and action to safeguard public health. Compounding the concern is the revelation that only 8% of Americans undergo regular testing. These findings, released today, underscore the urgent necessity for Asbestos Cancer Risk Awareness and routine testing. They emphasize the crucial importance of proactive measures to mitigate the pervasive risks associated with asbestos exposure in the United States. The study was conducted by Researchscape on behalf of The Law Offices of Justinian C. Lane, Esq. - PLLC, a leading firm advocating for testing and compensation for individuals exposed to asbestos on the job and their families who are at risk due to second-hand exposure. According to the survey, 86% of respondents have never undergone any testing for asbestos exposure, while a mere 8% are tested regularly. The lack of testing is particularly concerning among the Gen X demographic who could be at risk due to secondhand exposure from a family member who worked with asbestos when it was still prevalent, with 92% reporting no testing, highlighting the potential risks associated with secondhand exposure.

    Reasonable Expectations – Pennsylvania’s Case by Case Approach to the Sutton Rule

    February 12, 2024 —
    In Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. a/s/o Michael Sacks v. Koser, No. 1340 MDA 2023, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 574, 2023 PA Super 252 (Mutual Benefit), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania discussed whether a landlord’s property insurer could file a subrogation action against tenants that had negligently damaged the landlord’s property. Despite there being more than one clause in the lease holding the tenants liable for the damages, the court held that because there was a provision requiring the landlord, not the tenants, to insure the leased building, the insurer could not subrogate against the tenants. In Pennsylvania, a tenant’s liability for damage to a leased premises in a subrogation action brought by a landlord’s insurer is determined by the reasonable expectation of the parties to the lease agreement. Under this approach, to determine if subrogation is permitted, the court considers the circumstances of the case and examines the terms of the lease agreement. In Mutual Benefit, the tenants leased and resided in a residential home pursuant to a lease agreement. The lease specifically addressed insurance, stating that landlord was responsible for obtaining insurance on the dwelling and the landlord’s personal property, and tenants were encouraged to procure separate insurance for their personal property. The lease also addressed liability for damage to the leased property, stating generally that the tenants were responsible for damage caused by the tenants’ negligence. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Kenney, White and Williams
    Ms. Kenney may be contacted at

    Penalty for Failure to Release Expired Liens

    April 02, 2024 —
    I was recently contacted by a commercial building owner in the process of trying to sell his building. Two years prior to this, a subcontractor had recorded a mechanics’ lien with the local County Recorder’s office in relation to the owner’s property. The subcontractor recorded the mechanics lien after the subcontractor was not paid by a prime contractor for work the subcontractor had performed on the property. Unfortunately, the subcontractor then failed to file a lawsuit to foreclose on the lien within the requisite ninety (90) day time period for filing a lawsuit to foreclose on the mechanics’ lien. Since the subcontractor missed this 90 day deadline to file the mechanics lien foreclosure lawsuit, the mechanics lien expired and became unenforceable. Subject to certain exceptions, under California Civil Code Section 8460, a lawsuit to foreclose on a mechanics lien must be filed within ninety (90) days after the mechanics lien is recorded or the mechanics lien expires. Although the mechanics lien had expired, the title company and intended purchaser of the building and property were perhaps understandably insistent that the mechanics lien constituted a cloud on title to the property and must be removed from the official records for the property. The prospective purchaser would not buy the property unless the mechanics’ lien was removed. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at

    Appellate Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Order Compelling Appraisal

    January 16, 2024 —
    The Eleventh Circuit recently held that the district court's order compelling appraisal and staying the proceedings pending appraisal was an interlocutory order that was not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1292 (a) (1). Positano Place at Naples Condominium Association, Inc. v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 27961 (11th Cir. Oct. 20, 2023). Postiano Condominium Association suffered damage from Hurricane Irma. Pastiano notified its insurer, Empire, seven months later. Empire investigated the claim and inspected the property. Positano sent a written request for appraisal. Empire did not respond and Pastiano filed suit, alleging that the parties' dispute was not a coverage dispute but a dispute over the amount of the loss. Postiano moved to compel appraisal and to stay the proceedings pending completion of the appraisal. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at