BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety 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


    Can an Architect, Hired by an Owner, Be Sued by the General Contractor?

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Brokers' MSJ on Duties Owed In Construction Defect Case

    Coverage Article - To Settle or Not To Settle?

    Is Your Design Professional Construction Contract too Friendly? (Law Note)

    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Rules General Contractors Can Contractually Subordinate Mechanics Lien Rights

    Last Call: Tokyo Iconic Okura Hotel Meets the Wrecking Ball

    Purse Tycoon Aims at Ultra-Rich With $85 Million Home

    Excess Carrier's Declaratory Judgment Action Stayed While Underlying Case Still Pending

    As Florence Eyes East Coast, Are You Looking At Your Insurance?

    Unit Owners Have No Standing to Sue under Condominium Association’s Policy

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Hunton Insurance Head Interviewed Concerning the Benefits and Hidden Dangers of Cyber Insurance

    RDU Terminal 1: Going Green

    Quick Note: Submitting Civil Remedy Notice

    EPA Issues Interpretive Statement on Application of NPDES Permit System to Releases of Pollutants to Groundwater

    Obama Says Keystone Decision May Be Announced in Weeks or Months

    2017 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Declines to Eight-Month Low

    First Lumber, Now Drywall as Canada-U.S. Trade Tensions Escalate

    Can a Contractor be Liable to Second Buyers of Homes for Construction Defects?

    Increases in U.S. Office Rents Led by San Jose and Dallas

    UCF Sues Architects and Contractors Over Stadium Construction Defects

    Rhode Island Examines a Property Owner’s Intended Beneficiary Status and the Economic Loss Doctrine in the Context of a Construction Contract

    Contract Change #9: Owner’s Right to Carry Out the Work (law note)

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    A Property Boom Is Coming to China's Smaller Cities

    Norristown, PA to Stop Paying Repair Costs for Defect-Ridden Condo

    Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules that Insurance Salesman had No Fiduciary Duty to Policyholders

    Specific Performance of an Option Contract to Purchase Real Property is Barred Absent Agreement on All Material Terms

    White Collar Overtime Regulations Temporarily Blocked

    Manhattan to Get Tall, Skinny Tower

    Contractor Jailed for Home Repair Fraud

    Record Home Sales in Sydney Add to Bubble Fear

    Policy Sublimit Does Not Apply to Business Interruption Loss

    Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Vexed by Low Demand for Mortgages

    Depreciating Labor Costs May be Factor in Actual Cash Value

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    California Court of Appeal Adopts Horizontal Exhaustion Rule

    The Most Expensive Apartment Listings in New York That Are Not in Manhattan

    Rights Afforded to Employees and Employers During Strikes

    Congratulations 2016 DE, NJ, and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Turmoil Slows Rebuilding of Puerto Rico's Power Grid

    Insurance Law Alert: California Appeals Court Allows Joinder of Employee Adjuster to Bad Faith Lawsuit Against Homeowners Insurer

    Times Square Alteration Opened Up a Can of Worms

    Foundation Differences Across the U.S.

    #9 CDJ Topic: Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al.

    Leaning San Francisco Tower Seen Sinking From Space
    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

    Recording “Un-Neighborly” Documents

    April 03, 2019 —
    In September 2018, in Baumgartner v. Timmins, 245 Ariz. 334, 429 P.3d 567, the Arizona Court of Appeals provided further clarification on what constitutes an “encumbrance” on a property for purposes of Arizona’s statutory scheme prohibiting the recording of “false documents.” The statute, A.R.S. § 33-420, prohibits the recording of documents that a person knows to be forged, are groundless, or that contain material misstatements (or false claims). A person who claims an “interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against” real property who records such documents can be held liable for $5,000 or treble the actual damages caused by the recording (whichever is greater), A.R.S. § 33-420(A), and perhaps even be found guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor, A.R.S. § 33-420(E). At issue in Baumgartner were neighbors fighting about CC&Rs—a typical neighborhood fight. In 2015, some of the neighbors filed suit against the Timminses for violating the CC&Rs. The Timminses did not contest the lawsuit, resulting in a default judgment. In what the Court of Appeals characterized as a lawsuit filed by the Timminses “in apparent response to the [first] lawsuit and resulting default judgment,” the Timminses created, signed, and recorded affidavits contending that the Plaintiffs in the original lawsuit were themselves “in violation of several provisions of the CC&Rs.” The Plaintiffs then filed suit again against the Timminses, this time contending that the Timminses had violated A.R.S. § 33-420 by recording the affidavits because the affidavits, the Plaintiffs contended, created encumbrances on their properties. The Apache County Superior Court agreed, and issued a final judgment nullifying the recorded documents and awarding the Timminses damages, along with their attorneys’ fees and costs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bob Henry, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Henry may be contacted at bhenry@swlaw.com

    Update Your California Release Provisions to Include Amended Section 1542 Language

    April 02, 2019 —
    Most companies have been involved in a situation where they want to end their relationship with another company, or with an employee, and to permanently terminate their mutual obligations (e.g., a settlement agreement resolving end-of-project litigation). In 1992, a California Court of Appeals, in Winet v. Price, confirmed that upholding general releases is “in harmony… with a beneficial principle of contract law: that general releases can be so constructed as to be completely enforceable.” In California, agreements with a release of claims (or s general release) include what is often referred to as a California Civil Code § 1542 waiver for the purpose of ensuring that the releasing party is consciously releasing both known and unknown claims that may be later discovered. Such a waiver provision generally confirms that the Releasing Party acknowledges that it understands and waives the provisions of Section 1542, followed by the quoted text of Section 1542 (typically in all capital letters). Reprinted courtesy of Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury and William S. Hale, Pillsbury Ms. Pierce may be contacted at amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Hale may be contacted at william.hale@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Treasures Inside Notre Dame Cathedral

    May 06, 2019 —
    Paris’s Notre Dame cathedral took more than 200 years to build and just a few hours to burn. The structure’s construction began in the 12th century; six hundred years later, it was rehabilitated by Napoleon in the 1800s. In the interim, kings were crowned underneath its monumental stained glass windows even as the city around it rose, fell, and rose again. It has served as the setting of numerous historical events, including Napoleon’s coronation in 1804. In August 1944, a special mass in the cathedral attended by General Charles de Gaulle was held to celebrate the liberation of Paris from the Nazis. The spire contained relics of Saint Denis and Saint Genevieve, the patron saints of Paris, according to Laurent Ferri, a curator in the Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections at Cornell University and former conservateur du patrimoine at the French National Archives. The archbishop of Paris placed the relics at the summit of the church in 1935 to protect the building. “They are now likely reduced to ashes,” Ferri says. Reprinted courtesy of James Tarmy, Bloomberg and Eugene Reznik, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company

    February 19, 2019 —
    The Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision yesterday finding no coverage for fire damage to a building is a cautionary tale for companies acquiring other companies. Erie Ins. Exch. v. EPC MD 15, LLC, 2019 WL 238168 (Va. Jan. 17, 2019). In that case, Erie Insurance issued a property insurance policy to EPC. The policy covered EPC only and did not cover any subsidiaries of EPC. EPC then acquired the sole member interest in Cyrus Square, LLC. Following the acquisition, fire damaged a building that Cyrus Square owned. EPC sought coverage under its property insurance policy. Because the policy did not cover Cyrus Square, EPC argued that a provision extending coverage to “newly acquired buildings” applied, contending that EPC had newly acquired Cyrus Square’s building by virtue of becoming the sole member interest in the LLC. Based on the law relative to LLCs and its interpretation of the policy, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled against EPC. It found that although EPC had acquired Cyrus Square, it had not “newly acquired” the building and so the “newly acquired buildings” coverage extension did not apply. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Hampshire’s Statute of Repose for Improvements to Real Property Does Not Apply to Product Manufacturers

    April 22, 2019 —
    In United Services Automobile Association v. Broan-Nutone, LLC, No. 218 2017 CV 01113, [1] the Superior Court of Rockingham County, New Hampshire recently considered whether the eight-year statute of repose for improvements to real property applied to the manufacturer of a ceiling ventilation fan that was installed in the property during its original construction. The court held that New Hampshire’s statute of repose did not apply to the manufacturer because it was not involved in incorporating its product into the property. In 2012, Chad St. Francis purchased a home in Northwood, New Hampshire. The home was originally constructed in 2008, at which time a Broan-Nutone ceiling ventilation fan was installed in the first-floor bathroom. In 2016, a fire occurred at the home. United Services Automobile Association (USAA) provided property casualty insurance for the home and paid Mr. St. Francis for the damage. In 2017, USAA filed a subrogation lawsuit against Broan-Nutone, alleging that its ceiling fan caused the fire due to a design defect within the product. Broan-Nutone filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds that USAA’s action was barred by New Hampshire’s statute of repose for improvements to real property. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Massachusetts Court Holds Statute of Repose Bars Certain Asbestos-Related Construction Claims

    April 17, 2019 —
    In Stearns v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) addressed whether the six-year statute of repose for improvements to real property applies to long-tail tort claims, such as those caused by exposure to asbestos. Reasoning that the language of § 2B is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal, the SJC held that Mass. Gen. Laws. c. 260 § 2B does in fact bar all tort claims arising out of a deficiency or neglect in the design, planning, construction or general administration of an improvement to real property filed after the expiration of the six-year repose period. Additionally, the court affirmed that the time limitations imposed by the statute of repose may not be tolled for any reason six years after either the opening of the improvement for use or the owner taking possession of the improvement for occupation upon substantial completion, whichever may occur first. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy J. Keough, White and Williams LLP and Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP Mr. Keough may be contacted at keought@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Meaning of "Living in the Same Household" for Purposes of Coverage Under a Homeowners Policy

    April 10, 2019 —
    As all insurance coverage attorneys know, how courts interpret certain words and phrases in insurance policies is significant since one word can make the difference between a claim being covered or not. On January 28, 2019, the Court of Appeal for Ontario, in the Ferro v. Weiner1 decision, clarified the jurisprudence on the meaning of “living in the same household” in the context of homeowners policies. Background Facts Ms. Enid Weiner owned a lakeside home which was insured under a homeowners policy through Intact Insurance Company (the “Intact Policy”). The Policy listed only Enid Weiner as the Named Insured, but provided coverage to her relatives “while living in the same household” for liability for unintentional bodily injury arising from an insured’s “personal actions anywhere in the world.” Although the lake house was used as a vacation home when Ms. Weiner’s children were small, it was her primary residence for about ten years before she moved into a nursing home. While she never permanently moved back, her three grown children and their families used the house as a cottage, with Enid occasionally accompanying them. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stella Szantova Giordano, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Giordano may be contacted at ssg@sdvlaw.com

    Trial Court's Award of Contractual Fees to Public Adjuster Overturned

    June 03, 2019 —
    A judgment awarding the public adjuster his compensation for work performed under contract was remanded for further proceedings by the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals. Joslin v Ota Camp-Makibaka Ass'n, 2019 Haw. App. LEXIS 155 (Haw. Ct. App. April 5, 2019). A fire destroyed the homeowners' residence on September 19, 2013. The property was subject to the bylaws of the Association of Apartment Owners of Ota Camp. The Association had a policy with Alterra Excess & Surplus Insurance Company and submitted a claim for all units damaged in the fire. The Association's adjuster came the following day to inspect the site. Separately, Robert Joslin, public adjuster, entered a contract with the homeowners to adjust their claim in exchange for twelve-percent of any insurance proceeds obtained. Over the next several months Joslin pursued insurance proceeds from Alterra on behalf of the homeowners. On December 18, 2013, Joslin filed a complaint with the Insurance Division arguing that Alterra had failed to timely make payments on the claim. On February 10, 2014, Alterra's third party administrator, Engle Martin & Associates, sent a check to Joslin for $231,940 made out to the Association, the homeowners and Joslin. 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