• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield 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

    No Coverage for Restoring Aesthetic Uniformity

    No Duty to Defend Additional Insured for Construction Defects

    Details Matter: The Importance of Strictly Following Public Bid Statutes

    AB5, Dynamex, the ABC Standard, and their Effects on the Construction Industry

    Is A Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound by A Default or Default Judgment Against Its Principal?

    London’s Best Districts Draw Buyers on Italian Triple Dip

    Hydrogen Powers Its Way from Proof of Concept to Reality in Real Estate

    Florida’s Fourth District Appeals Court Clarifies What Actions Satisfy Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Slump in U.S. Housing Starts Led by Multifamily: Economy

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

    Affordable Harlem Housing Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    Subcontractors Eye 2022 with Guarded Optimism

    Don’t Waive Too Much In Your Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

    "Ordinance or Law" Provision Mandates Coverage for Roof Repair

    Take Advantage of AI and Data Intelligence in Construction

    Nevada Senate Bill 435 is Now in Effect

    Building Stagnant in Las Cruces Region

    Boston’s Tunnel Project Plagued by Water

    Drought Dogs Developers in California's Soaring Housing Market

    TV Kitchen Remodelers Sued for Shoddy Work

    Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company

    Structural Engineer Found Liable for Defects that Rendered a Condominium Dangerously Unsafe

    Differing Site Conditions Produce Differing Challenges

    Seven Proactive Steps to Avoid Construction Delay Disputes

    Recommendations for Property Owners After A Hurricane: Submit a Claim

    President Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order and the Construction Industry

    Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

    City Development with Interactive 3D Models

    Boyfriend Pleads Guilty in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Suicide

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation: A Redux

    Port Authority Reaches Deal on Silverstein 3 World Trade

    Two More Lawsuits Filed Over COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

    Can a Receiver Prime and Strip Liens Against Real Property?

    Reasonableness of Denial of Requests for Admission Based Upon Expert’s Opinions Depends On Factors Within Party’s Understanding

    Axa Buys London Pinnacle Site for Redesigned Skyscraper

    A Word to the Wise about Construction Defects

    Berlin Lawmakers Get a New Green Workspace

    Florida Supreme Court Adopts Federal Summary Judgment Standard, Substantially Conforming Florida’s Rule 1.510 to Federal Rule 56

    Housing Affordability Down

    LAX Construction Defect Suit May Run into Statute of Limitations

    Court Narrowly Interprets “Faulty Workmanship” Provision

    The Show Must Go On: Navigating Arbitration in the Wake of the COVID-19 Outbreak

    Subcontractors Have Remedies, Even if “Pay-if-Paid” Provisions are Enforced

    Contractors Struggle with Cash & Difficult Payment Terms, Could Benefit From Legal Advice, According to New Survey

    When to use Arbitration to Resolve Construction Disputes

    Coverage Exists for Landlord as Additional Insured

    Alaska Supreme Court Dismisses Claims of Uncooperative Pro Se Litigant in Defect Case

    Bribe Charges Take Toll on NY Contractor

    Daniel Ferhat Receives Two Awards for Service to the Legal Community

    Georgia Court Clarifies Landlord Liability for Construction Defects
    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

    Can a Home Builder Disclaim Implied Warranties of Workmanship and Habitability?

    August 30, 2021 —
    In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Zambrano v. M & RC II LLC, 2021 WL 3204491 (7/29/2021), the Court of Appeals addressed the question whether a home builder’s attempt to disclaim implied warranties of workmanship and habitability was effective. In that case, the buyer initialed the builder’s prominent disclaimer of all implied warranties, including implied warranties of habitability and workmanship. After the purchase, the buyer sued the builder, claiming construction defects. The builder moved for summary judgment, seeking enforcement of the disclaimer of warranties. The trial court granted the builder’s motion for summary judgment, thereby enforcing the disclaimers. The buyer appealed. The Court of Appeals addressed the question whether – as a matter of public policy – the implied warranties of workmanship and habitability were waivable. The Court of Appeals started the analysis by noting that the Arizona Supreme Court had, in a 1979 case, judicially eliminated the caveat emptor rule for newly built homes. The court further noted the long history of cases detailing the public policy favoring the implied warranties. But the court also noted the competing public policy of allowing parties to freely contract; explaining that the usual and most important function of the courts is to maintain and enforce contracts rather than allowing parties to escape their contractual obligations on the pretext of public policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Parker may be contacted at

    Cal/OSHA Approves COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards; Executive Order Makes Them Effective Immediately

    July 11, 2021 —
    On June 17, 2021, California's Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Standards Board) passed amended COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS). Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an Executive Order to make the amended ETS effective as soon as filed with the Secretary of State. The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) filed them, and the Secretary of State posted them, making the ETS effective immediately. These changes attempt to bring the ETS in alignment with recent changes to California Department of Public Health Order and the latest guidance from the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Highlights of the changes to the ETS can be found here. Face Coverings in the Workplace; Elimination of Physical Distancing Notably, fully vaccinated employees do not have to wear a face covering indoors except in limited circumstances. Unvaccinated workers will still need to wear face coverings indoors (unless they are alone in a room or eating and drinking) and in shared vehicles. All employees regardless of vaccination status do not have to wear masks outdoors. Unvaccinated employees must be trained that face coverings are recommended outdoors for individuals who are not fully vaccinated when six feet of physical distance cannot be maintained. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Leila S. Narvid, Payne & Fears LLP
    Ms. Narvid may be contacted at

    Pa. Contractor Pleads No Contest to Prevailing-Wage Charges, Pays Workers $20.7M

    September 20, 2021 —
    Pennsylvania construction contractor Glenn O. Hawbaker Inc. has pleaded no contest to counts of theft of worker pay—in alleged violation of state prevailing-wage laws—and will pay 1,267 workers restitution of $20.7 million in unpaid wages, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro said. The company entered its plea to four felony counts of “theft by failure to make required disposition of funds received” on Aug. 3 before President Judge Pamela A. Ruest of the Centre County Court of Common Pleas in Bellefonte, Pa. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2021 Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    July 05, 2021 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to announce Partners Kyle Carroll, Nicole Nuzzo, and Michael D’Andrea, as well as Associates Andy Arakelian and Andrew Steinberg, have been selected to the 2021 Super Lawyers Southern California Rising Stars for their work in Civil and Family litigation! Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    NYC’s Developers Plow Ahead With Ambitious Plans to Reshape City

    May 03, 2021 —
    New York City’s builders have had a curious reaction to a pandemic that emptied Manhattan’s office towers, shuttered restaurants and kept tourists home. Over the past year, as scores of businesses closed and many residents beat it out of town, developers doubled-down on visions of steel-and-glass grandeur, hatching plans that could transform the city. Vornado Realty Trust recently said it will demolish the Hotel Pennsylvania and add an office tower taller than 1,200 feet (366 meters) at the site by Madison Square Garden. Near Grand Central Terminal, giant towers are sprouting, including a project to redevelop the Grand Hyatt next to the transit hub. The developers are proposing a 1,600-foot skyscraper that would be among the tallest in the Western Hemisphere. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Clark & Natalie Wong, Bloomberg

    Cybersecurity "Flash" Warning for Construction and Manufacturing Businesses

    April 26, 2021 —
    The FBI recently released its 2020 Internet Crime Report (Report), which details and analyzes complaints received through the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). In 2020, IC3 received a record number of complaints – nearly 800,000, with reported losses in excess of $4.1 billion. Companies must acknowledge that cybercrime is a real, dangerous threat to their business, and understand how, and why, these threats continue to escalate. At a minimum, businesses should take several proactive steps to protect themselves. What is IC3? IC3 is an online platform hosted by the FBI, which exists to provide the public with a trusted place to report cybercrime to the FBI. Since its inception in 2000, the IC3 has received 5.6 million complaints, and has averaged approximately 440,000 complaints over each of the last five years. The complaint figure for 2020 is nearly double that average. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey M. Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion
    Mr. Dennis may be contacted at

    Insured's Failure to Prove Entire Collapse of Building Leads to Dismissal

    July 19, 2021 —
    The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the insured's claim for damage to her home caused by collapse. Stewart v. Metropolitan Lloyds Ins. Co. of Texas, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 14221 (5th Girl May 13, 2021). One evening, the insured was awakened by a loud bang that shook her house. The next morning, she noticed the damage to her home, cracked sheetrock and sunken floors. She cut a hole through her floor and discovered that a couple of joists below her subfloor had broken and fallen away. The insured filed a claim with Metropolitan. Metropolitan hired an expert who found broken and deteriorated floor joists, deteriorated floor decking, walls not plumb and gaps in the wall-to-ceiling interface. It was determined that the rot in the floor joists and subfloor decking were caused by a combination of termite damage and exposure to moisture over the lifespan of the structure, resulting in the broken floor joists and unlevel floors. The insured's own expert agreed that termite damage and wood rot were the cause of the foundation collapse failure. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    When Employer’s Liability Coverage May Be Limited in New York

    June 28, 2021 —
    New York recognizes that coverage under Workers’ Compensation (“WC”) and Employer’s Liability (“EL”) policies is generally unlimited. See Tully Const. Co. v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 131 A.D.3d 598 (2d Dept. 2015); Oneida Ltd. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 263 A.D.2d 825, 694 N.Y.S.2d 221 (3d Dept. 1999). However, there is case holding that EL coverage may be limited in certain instances, such as when the primary EL carrier is listed as scheduled underlying insurance on an excess policy. In Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of State of Pennsylvania, 43 A.D.3d 666, 841 N.Y.S.2d 288 (1st Dept. 2007), an employee of General Industrial Service Corporation (“General”), a subcontractor on a construction project, sought to recover under New York’s Labor Law against the project’s owner and construction manager. Those defendants, in turn, brought a third-party action for indemnification against General. The employee’s personal injury claim was ultimately settled for $2.5 million. After the settlement, the excess insurer, Liberty, filed suit against the primary employer’s liability insurers, The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and American International Group of Companies (collectively, “AIG”), which had refused to participate in the defense or settlement of the underlying personal injury litigation. Although the issue of whether the plaintiff in the underling action had sustained a “grave injury” (necessary to support the common law indemnity claim against General and trigger coverage under the Employer’s Lability policy) had not yet been determined, the court held that “[i]n the event the existence of a grave injury is proven, AIG’s liability will be limited to $1 million.” Reprinted courtesy of Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman and Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman Mr. Nobel may be contacted at Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of