• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractor
    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

    Appreciate The Risks You Are Assuming In Your Contract

    Vertical vs. Horizontal Exhaustion – California Supreme Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Policyholders

    New York Appellate Division: Second Department Contradicts First Department, Denying Insurer's Recoupment of Defense Costs for Uncovered Claims

    Architectural Firm, Fired by School District, Launches Lawsuit

    The Problem with One Year Warranties

    CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Related Remedies – 2014 Update

    URGENT: 'Catching Some Hell': Hurricane Michael Slams Into Florida

    A Contractual Liability Exclusion Doesn't Preclude Insurer's Duty to Indemnify

    Another Setback for the New Staten Island Courthouse

    2016 California Construction Law Upate

    Breaking the Impasse by Understanding Blame

    West Coast Casualty’s 25th Construction Defect Seminar Has Begun

    Arctic Fires Are Melting Permafrost That Keeps Carbon Underground

    California Court of Appeal Finds Alleged Inadequate Defense by Insurer-Appointed Defense Counsel Does Not Trigger a Right to Independent Counsel

    Insured Under Property Insurance Policy Should Comply With Post-Loss Policy Conditions

    Construction Firm Sues City and Engineers over Reservoir Project

    Manhattan Home Sales Rise at Slower Pace as Prices Jump

    LaGuardia Airport Is a Mess. An Engineer-Turned-Fund Manager Has a Fix

    Ensuring Arbitration in Construction Defect Claims

    MTA Debarment Update

    CA Senate Report States Caltrans ‘Gagged and Banished’ its Critics

    Nevada Provides Independant Counsel When Conflict Arises Between Insurer and Insured

    Delays Caused When Government (Owner) Pushes Contractor’s Work Into Rainy / Adverse Weather Season

    Lien Claimant’s Right to Execute against Bond Upheld in Court of Appeals

    Brief Overview of Rights of Unlicensed Contractors in California

    Indiana Court of Appeals Holds That Lease Terms Bar Landlord’s Carrier From Subrogating Against Commercial Tenant

    Demonstrating A Fraudulent Inducement Claim Or Defense

    Fifth Circuit Certifies Eight-Corners Duty to Defend Issue to Texas Supreme Court

    U.K. to Set Out Plan for Fire-Risk Apartment Cladding Crisis

    Commonwealth Court Strikes Blow to Philly Window and Door Ordinance

    Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property

    Real Property Alert: Recording Notice of Default as Trustee Before Being Formally Made the Trustee Does Not Make Foreclosure Sale Void

    Apartment Construction Ominously Nears 25-Year High

    U.K. Construction Unexpectedly Strengthens for a Second Month

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Utah for Damage Caused By Faulty Workmanship

    Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House

    Reporting Requirements for Architects under California Business and Professions Code Section 5588

    Virginia Chinese Drywall “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and number of “occurrences”

    London Penthouse Will Offer Chance to Look Down at Royalty

    Private Mediations Do Not Toll The Five-Year Prosecution Statute

    Senior Housing Surplus Seen as Boomers Spur Building Boom

    BIM Meets Reality on the Construction Site

    CC&Rs Not the Place for Arbitration Agreement, Court Rules

    Meritage Acquires Legendary Communities

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Prison Contractors Did Not Follow the Law

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Asbestos Exclusion in Alleged Failure to Disclose Case

    The Privacy Shield Is Gone: How Do I Now Move Data from the EU to the US

    Traub Lieberman Recognized in 2022 U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms”
    Corporate Profile


    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

    Homeowner’s Claims Defeated Because “Gravamen” of Complaint was Fraud, not Breach of Contract

    September 29, 2021 —
    Be careful what you wish for or, as in the next case, what you plead. In Vera v. REL-BC, LLC, Case Nos. A155807, A156823, and A159141 (June 30, 2021) 1st District Court of Appeal, a the buyer of a remodeled home who asserted breach of contract and fraud claims against a developer discovered that her claims, including her breach of written contract claim, was subject to a shorter 3 year statute of limitations because the “gravamen” of her complaint was fraud. The REL-BC Case Homeowner Adriana Vera purchased a remodeled home in Oakland, California from developers REL-BC, LLC and SNL Real Estate Solutions, LLC. The developers had purchased the home in July 2011, remodeled it, and sold it to Vera in November 2011. As is typical in such transactions, the purchase agreement for the house required that the sellers disclose known material facts and defects affecting the property. In their disclosure, the sellers stated that they were not aware of any significant defects or malfunctions with respect to the property. The disclosure also stated that the sellers were not aware of any water intrusion issues with respect to the property. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    How to Build a Water-Smart City

    August 23, 2021 —
    Cities across time have stretched to secure water. The Romans built aqueducts, the Mayans constructed underground storage chambers, and Hohokam farmers dug more than 500 miles of canals in what is now the U.S. Southwest. Today’s cities use portfolios of technologies to conserve supply — everything from 60-story dams and chemicals to centrifugal pumps and special toilets. And yet, the cities of tomorrow will have to do more. A recent United Nations report on drought says climate change is increasing the frequency, severity and duration of droughts, which contribute to food insecurity, poverty and inequality. The report also asserts that “drought has been the single longest-term physical trigger of political change in 5,000 years of recorded human history.” It calls for urgent action and a transformation in governance to manage modern drought risk more effectively. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Chris Malloy, Bloomberg

    Build Back Better Includes Historic Expansion of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program

    December 20, 2021 —
    On November 19, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376), a bill that represents a large portion of the Biden-Harris Administration’s agenda. Among other spending and tax measures, the bill includes an unprecedented expansion of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. Four proposals are headlining this expansion:
    1. Increasing the 9% LIHTC allocation cap by 10% plus inflation annually from 2022 to 2024. With this increase, the 2024 LIHTC allocation cap will rise to $3.97 per capita and a small state minimum of around $4.58 million, constituting a 41 percent increase in allocable LIHTC over current levels. The allocation cap would then decrease to $2.65 per capita and a small state minimum of $3.12 million in 2025 and would thereafter be indexed to inflation from the 2025 baseline.
    2. Reducing the 50% threshold for 4% tax-exempt bond-financed projects to 25% for five years, beginning in 2022.
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Grosser, Pillsbury and David W. Wright, Pillsbury Mr. Grosser may be contacted at Read the full story...

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Business Interruption, COVID-19 Claims Under Pollution Policy Fails

    January 11, 2022 —
    The insurer was unsuccessful in seeking to dismiss business interruption claims due to COVID-19 under a pollution policy. New York Botanical Garden v. Allied World Assur., 2021 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct.15, 2021). The insured was forced to cease operation after executive orders by the governor and mayor were issued in March 2020. The insured also had to reduce its in-person workforce by 100%. The insured's claim for business interruption and contingent business interruption were denied by Allied. The insured sued for a declaratory judgment. Allied moved to dismiss, arguing that the executive orders were issued for prophylactic reasons in an effort to mitigate the spread of the virus. They were not issued solely to address the presence of COVID-19 at any non-insured owned location, but were issued broadly to limit the risk of spreading the COVID-19 virus. The insured responded that its broader pollution liability policy was not a typical civil authority policy that required the physical loss or damage to property. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    OSHA ETS Heads to Sixth Circuit

    December 13, 2021 —
    On November 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was selected during the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s lottery to hear the multiple consolidated challenges to the recent COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA is permitted to issue an ETS if the agency arrives at the conclusion that a “grave danger” to worker safety exists. An ETS does not go through the typical notice-and-comment period that federal regulations usually follow. Inheriting the Fifth Circuit’s recent nationwide stay on implementation and enforcement of the ETS, the Sixth Circuit will decide whether the stay should be “modified, revoked, or extended” in the short term. Early this morning, OSHA filed an emergency motion to dissolve the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the vaccine mandate with the Sixth Circuit. OSHA argued, among other things:
    • The Fifth Circuit erred in holding “that OSHA lacked statutory authority to address the grave danger of COVID-19 in the place on the ground that COVID-19 is caused by a virus and also exists outside of the workplace” because “[t]hat rationale has no basis in the statutory text.”
    • The Fifth Circuit erred in finding the ETS both over- and underinclusive because “OSHA recounted extensive empirical data showing that all employees can transmit COVID-19 in the workplace and that COVID-19 has spread in a vast variety of workplace.”
    • The “petitioners have not shown that their claimed injuries outweigh the interests in protecting employees from a dangerous virus while this litigation proceeds . . . . These claimed injuries do not justify delaying the [ETS] that will save thousands of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations.”
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of George Morrison, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Morrison may be contacted at

    Florida Court Gives Parties Assigned a Subrogation Claim a Math Lesson

    August 04, 2021 —
    Although the focus of most subrogation cases is usually on proving liability, determining the appropriate measure of damages is just as important. Sometimes turning on a nuanced argument for recoverability, an adverse holding can significantly boost or reduce the total damages in a case. The Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District (Court) recently decided such an issue in a case involving subrogation, holding that the defendants owed much more than they originally anticipated. In Five Solas v. Ram Realty Servs., No. 4D19-2211 2021, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 7546, the Court reviewed the appropriate setoff in damages that the defendants were entitled to when measuring the recoverable damages. The Court reversed the lower court’s holding, which held that the defendants were entitled to a setoff that limited the jury’s award to $104,481.75. Instead the Court held that the defendants were only entitled to a setoff equal to the excess recovery over replacement cost. The case involves, among other things, property damage sustained by building owner Five Solas (Owner) and its lessee William Price, P.A. from a collapsed wall originating from the property of the defendants, Ram Realty Services, LLC and Sodix Fern, LLC d/b/a Alexander Lofts (collectively referred to as Defendants). Owner’s carrier, Foremost Insurance Company (Foremost), paid out its policy limit of $430,518.25 to Owner for damage to the building. Owner then pursued its claim against the tortfeasors for the remaining damages not paid by its carrier.[1] Foremost also pursued a subrogation claim, but settled its subrogation claim with Defendants, assigning its subrogation rights to Defendants. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at

    Alleging and Proving a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) Claim

    December 13, 2021 —
    When it comes to construction disputes, a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (known by its acronym “FDUTPA”) claim is not commonly asserted. A FDUTPA claim is a statutory claim under Florida Statute s. 501.201 en seq. This claim is NOT easy to prove, particularly in the construction context. Sometimes, a party will assert a FDUTPA claim to create a basis for attorney’s fees; however, that basis cuts BOTH ways, i.e., you can be liable for fees if you fail to prove the FDUTPA claim. In a construction dispute, a FDUTPA claim is one that really should be pled with caution after a party understands and fully considers what it MUST prove including the all-important consideration of how actual damages are determined under FDUTPA, which requires an actual loss. Nevertheless, it is good to know what you need to prove to support a FDUTPA claim in case you believe you have facts that can support a FDUTPA claim and actual damages under FDUTPA (known as benefit-of-the-bargain damages). Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A. Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Read the full story...

    Montana Federal District Court Finds for Insurer in Pollution Coverage Dispute

    October 24, 2021 —
    Applying Louisiana law, a recent federal court decision exemplifies why policyholders should thoroughly read claims-made policies to understand when notice is due to insurers and truthfully complete policy applications. In Admiral Insurance Company v. Dual Trucking, Inc.,1 the Court determined the insurer, Admiral Insurance Company (“AIC”), owed no duty to defend or indemnify Dual Trucking and Transport, LLC (“DTT”), Dual Trucking of Montana, LLC (“DTM”), and Dual Trucking, Inc. (“DTI”) (collectively, the “Dual Entities”) under two Environmental Impairment Liability Policies (“EIL Policies”) and four Contractor Pollution Liability Policies (“CPL Policies”). The Court justified its decision because the Dual Entities: 1) did not give notice during the 2012-2013 EIL Policy period; 2) had discovered or knew of, but did not disclose, potential pollution conditions before the inception of the 2013-2014 EIL Policy and before the expiration of the extended reporting period of the 2012-2013 EIL Policy; 3) failed to provide AIC with notice during the extended reporting period of the 2013-2014 EIL Policy of claims for which the Dual Entities were seeking coverage; and 4) materially misrepresented known facts on the CPL Policy applications. I. Factual Background. The Dual Entities were Louisiana-based companies that provided oilfield equipment rental services. In 2011, the Dual Entities leased land in Montana under three leases, collectively referred to as “the Bainville site.” Shortly afterward, the Dual Entities applied for, and AIC issued, an EIL Policy and two CPL Policies with a policy period of October 1, 2012, to October 1, 2013. AIC renewed all three policies for the October 1, 2013, to October 1, 2014, policy period. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. McDonald may be contacted at