BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witness
    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


    Ahlers, Cressman & Sleight PLLC Ranked Top Washington Law Firm By Construction Executive

    Appellate Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

    Motion to Strike Insurer's Expert Opinion Granted

    Pacing in Construction Scheduling Disputes

    Useful Life: A Valuable Theory for Reducing Damages

    Changes in the Law on Lien Waivers

    Housing Starts Surge 23% in Comeback for Canadian Builders

    Workers Compensation Immunity and the Intentional Tort Exception

    Statutory Time Limits for Construction Defects in Massachusetts

    Manhattan Gets First Crowdfunded Condos

    World Green Building Council Calls for Net-Zero Embodied Carbon in Buildings by 2050

    Couple Claims ADA Renovation Lead to Construction Defects

    Repairs Commencing on Defect-Ridden House from Failed State Supreme Court Case

    Class Action Certification by Association for “Matters of Common Interest”

    Tiny Houses Big With U.S. Owners Seeking Economic Freedom

    Bad Welds Doom Art Installation at Central Park

    Waive Not, Want Not: Waivers and Releases on California Construction Projects

    Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes

    Understanding the California Consumer Privacy Act

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects

    Another Way a Mechanic’s Lien Protects You

    Architectural Democracy – Interview with Pedro Aibéo

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Collapse Coverage Fails

    'There Was No Fighting This Fire,' California Survivor Says

    Insurer's In-House Counsel's Involvement in Coverage Decision Opens Door to Discovery

    Cracked Girders Trigger Scrutiny of Salesforce Transit Center's Entire Structure

    Federal Government May Go to Different Green Building Standard

    Contract Change #8: Direct Communications between Owners and Contractors (law note)

    When is a Residential Subcontractor not Subject to the VCPA? Read to Find Out

    Flood Coverage Denied Based on Failure to Submit Proof of Loss

    3 Common Cash Flow Issues That Plague The Construction Industry

    Nine Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Recognized as Southern California Super Lawyers

    Number of Occurrences Is On the Agenda at This Year's ICLC Seminar

    New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York

    Toronto Contractor Bondfield Wins Court Protection as Project Woes Mount

    Former SNC-Lavalin CEO Now Set for Trial in Bribe Case

    Construction Contracts Fall in Denver

    Packard Condominiums Settled with Kosene & Kosene Residential

    Feds Move To Indict NY Contractor Execs, Developer, Ex-Cuomo Aide

    Ahlers Distinguished As Top Super Lawyer In Washington And Nine Firm Members Recognized As Super Lawyers Or Rising Stars

    William Lyon Homes Unites with Polygon Northwest Company

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California FAIR Plan Limited to Coverage Provided by Statutory Fire Insurance Policy

    Sometimes, Being too Cute with Pleading Allegations is Unnecessary

    NYC Luxury-Condo Buyers Await New Towers as Sales Slow

    Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

    90 and 150: Two Numbers You Must Know

    Ensuring Arbitration in Construction Defect Claims

    Alleging Property Damage in Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Subprime Bonds Are Back With Different Name Seven Years After U.S. Crisis

    Economic Damages Cannot be Based On Speculation
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    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

    New York Regulator Issues Cyber Insurance Guidelines

    March 29, 2021 —
    From the rise of ransomware attacks to the recent SolarWinds-based cyber espionage campaign that struck at the very heart of the U.S. Government, it is apparent that cybersecurity is more critical than ever. COVID-19 and the remote workplace has only served to embolden cyber criminals, and cyber risk now permeates nearly every aspect of modern life from health care data to national security. Cyber insurance plays a critical role in managing cyber risk, and businesses increasingly rely on such coverage to minimize cyber losses. Because of surging cybercrime, it is estimated that the cyber insurance market will increase from $3.15 billion in 2019 to $20 billion by 2025. Having a robust cyber insurance market and ample available coverage is vital to U.S. businesses. In recognition of this reality, the New York Department of Financial Services recently issued the first guidance by a U.S. regulator on cyber insurance—a Cyber Insurance Risk Framework. A key premise of the Framework is to drive improved cybersecurity and cyber risk management, thereby reducing cyberattacks and ensuring that cyber insurance premiums do not spiral out of control. The Framework recognizes the importance of ensuring a healthy cyber insurance market, and applies to all property/casualty insurers that write cyber insurance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anne Kelley, Newmeyer Dillion
    Ms. Kelley may be contacted at anne.kelley@ndlf.com

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2021

    November 23, 2020 —
    White and Williams has achieved national recognition from U.S. News and World Report as a "Best Law Firm" in the practice areas of Insurance Law, Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law and Media Law. Our Delaware, New York and Philadelphia offices have also been recognized in their respective metropolitan regions in several practice areas. Firms included in the “Best Law Firms” list are recognized for professional excellence with persistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. Achieving a tiered ranking signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal experience. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Formal Opinion No. 2020-203: How A Lawyer Is to Handle Access to Client Confidential Information and Anticipation of Potential Security Issues

    December 07, 2020 —
    Recently, the California Bar Association (“CBA”) published Formal Opinion No. 2020-203[1] concerning a lawyer’s ethical obligations with respect to unauthorized access to electronically stored client information. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic greatly accelerated the growing trend of storing and maintaining data and information online so that employees and clients can access the data from anywhere in the world at any time. Now, in today’s working world, the reality is nearly all information and data is stored and shared digitally online for ease of access, use, and dissemination. Unfortunately, a major draw-back of this switch to a cyber paradigm is serious exposure to data breaches as a result of hacking, inadvertence, or theft. Formal Opinion No. 2020-203 outlines how a lawyer is to handle access to client confidential information and anticipation of potential security issues. This article will briefly cover the key aspects addressed in Formal Opinion No. 2020-203. What is the duty owed by a lawyer to his or her client regarding the use of technology? At the outset, the CBA reminds lawyers of the ongoing duty of competence (Rule 1.1) and the duty to safeguard clients’ confidences and secrets (Rule 1.6; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068(e)) which impose the requirement that a lawyer must have a basic understanding of the risks posed when using a given technology and (if necessary) obtain help from appropriate experts to assess those risks and take reasonable steps to prevent data breaches. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

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

    February 08, 2021 —
    Following the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) in case C-311/18 Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems (known as “Schrems II”), companies in the United States can no longer rely on the Privacy Shield, the framework developed by the US Department of Commerce, and the European Commission and Swiss Administration to promote transatlantic commerce while protecting personal data. Schrems II Invalidated the Privacy Shield and Creates Uncertainty Schrems II concluded that the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework is no longer a valid mechanism to comply with EU data protection requirements when transferring personal data from the EU to the United States. Further, in a subsequent decision, the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner concluded that the data protection of the Privacy Shield does not provide an adequate level of protection for data transfer from Switzerland to the US pursuant to their Federal Act on Data Protection. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Heather Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion
    Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com

    Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

    November 30, 2020 —
    Did you think that a subcontractor had to name a general contractor in a mechanic’s lien suit? I did. Did you think that nothing about this changed in the case where a Virginia mechanic’s lien was “bonded off” pursuant to Va. Code Section 43-71? I did. Well, a recent Virginia Supreme Court case, Synchronized Construction Services Inc. v. Prav Lodging LLC, seems to at least create some doubt as to whether the a general contractor is a “necessary” party to a lawsuit by a subcontractor in the case where a bond is posted for release of a mechanic’s lien. In Prav Lodging, the facts were a bit unusual. The day after the mechanic’s lien was recorded by Synchronized Construction Services, Inc. (“Synchronized”) the construction manager, Paris Development Group, the construction manager and de facto general contractor, went out of business. Despite this fact, and after the lien was bonded off, Synchronized sued to enforce the lien and for breach of contract against Paris. The wrinkle here is that Synchronized was unable to serve several defendants, among them Paris, within one year of filing suit as required by Virginia statute. In the Circuit Court, the financing bank moved to dismiss the suit for failure to serve necessary parties. The Circuit Court dismissed the breach of contract count but refused to dismiss the mechanic’s lien count on this basis. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Insurer's In-House Counsel's Involvement in Coverage Decision Opens Door to Discovery

    January 11, 2021 —
    The Mississippi Supreme Court held that the insurer must produce written communications from and make available for deposition the in-house counsel who orchestrated the denial of coverage. Travelers Pro. Cas. Co. of Am. v. 100 Renaissance, LLC, 2020 Miss. LEXIS 409 (Miss. Oct. 29, 2020). An unidentified driver struck a flagpole owned by the insured Renaissance, causing $2,134 in damages. Renaissance filed a claim with Travelers for uninsured-motorist coverage. The Travelers' claims handler, Charlene Duncan, determined there was no coverage because the flagpole was not a covered auto. Before corresponding with the insured, Duncan sought legal advice from Travelers' in-house counsel, Jim Harris. Renaissance sued Travelers for coverage and bad faith. Renaissance then took Duncan's deposition and asked that she explain both the denial letter and the reasons Travelers denied the claim. Duncan repeatedly said she did not know the basis of the denial and that she had consulted with Harris. 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 te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Beyond the COI: The Importance of an Owner's or Facilities Manager's Downstream Insurance Review Program

    March 15, 2021 —
    The risk of bodily injury lawsuits is an unavoidable reality for property owners and facilities managers (“FMs”) of large commercial sites such as universities, malls, office buildings, or stadiums. Any person who steps foot on the property is a potential plaintiff, including students, tenants, customers, contractors, and vendors. Insurance mitigates these risks, but a property owner’s or FM’s risk transfer strategy should include more than their own suite of general liability and other third-party policies. Ensuring additional insured status on a vendor’s or contractor’s policy is also essential to a comprehensive risk transfer strategy. In a functional risk transfer program, a vendor’s or contractor’s general liability insurer should defend and indemnify property owners or FMs as additional insureds (“AIs”) for liability for bodily injury caused, in whole or in part, by the vendor’s or contractor’s operations. When this works as intended, it effectively transfers costs associated with such a lawsuit from the owner or FM to the vendor’s or contractor’s insurer. It also increases the insurance limits available for a loss. Reprinted courtesy of Hugh D. Hughes, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C., Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Mollie H. Levy, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Hughes may be contacted at HHughes@sdvlaw.com Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at EClarkson@sdvlaw.com Ms. Levy may be contacted at MLevy@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Additional Elements a Plaintiff Must Plead and Prove to Enforce Restrictive Covenant

    April 19, 2021 —
    Florida Statute s. 542.335 is a statute that deals with restrictive covenants in contracts that impose a restraint on trade. It is an important statute to determine invalid restraints on trade that unreasonably or unfairly prevent competition. Any invalid restraint on trade is unenforceable. Restrictive covenants–or covenants in agreements that restrict you or prevent you from doing something–may unsuspectingly be included in contracts or the impact of the restrictive covenant may not be appreciated at the onset. A party seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant in a contract has the additional burden of PROVING the validity and reasonableness of the restrictive covenant:
    Under section 542.335, three requirements must be satisfied for a restrictive covenant to be enforceable: (1) the restrictive covenant must be “set forth in a writing signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought”; (2) the party seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant “shall plead and prove the existence of one or more legitimate business interests justifying the restrictive covenant”; and (3) the party seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant “shall plead and prove that the contractually specified restraint is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest or interests justifying the restriction.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com