BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure 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


    Court Finds That Limitation on Conditional Use Permit Results in Covered Property Damage Due to Loss of Use

    BOOK CLUB SERIES: Everything You Want to Know About Construction Arbitration But Were Afraid to Ask

    A Court-Side Seat: Guam’s CERCLA Claim Allowed, a “Roundup” Verdict Upheld, and Judicial Process Privilege Lost

    Time to Reform Construction Defect Law in Nevada

    If You Purchase a House at an HOA Lien Foreclosure, Are You Entitled to Excess Sale Proceeds?

    Architects Should Not Make Initial Decisions on Construction Disputes

    Planes, Trains and Prevailing Wages. Ok, No Planes, But Trains and Prevailing Wages Yes

    Construction Spending Had Strongest Increase in Four Years

    Housing-Related Spending Made Up Significant Portion of GDP in Fourth Quarter 2013

    Design Professional Needs a License to be Sued for Professional Negligence

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Found In South Dakota

    Contractors Board May Discipline Over Workers’ Comp Reporting

    Foreman in Fatal NYC Trench Collapse Gets Jail Sentence

    Ackman Group Pays $91.5 Million for Condo at NYC’s One57

    English v. RKK. . . The Rest of the Story

    Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

    Before Celebrating the Market Rebound, Builders Need to Read the Fine Print: New Changes in Construction Law Coming Out of the Recession

    That’s Common Knowledge! Failure to Designate an Expert Witness in a Professional Negligence Case is Not Fatal Where “Common Knowledge” Exception Applies

    Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

    Justice Dept., EPA Ramp Up Environmental Justice Enforcement

    And the Winner Is . . . The Right to Repair Act!

    A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Endangered Species and Deliberative Process Privilege

    Heads I Win, Tails You Lose. Court Finds Indemnity Provision Went Too Far

    City of Birmingham Countersues Contractor for Incomplete Work

    Los Angeles Warehousing Mecca Halts Expansion Just as Needs Soar

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Stop - In the Name of the Law!”

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

    Google Advances Green Goal With AES Deal for Carbon-Free Power

    OPINION: Stop Requiring Exhibit Lists!

    Demonstrating A Fraudulent Inducement Claim Or Defense

    What Counts as Adequate Opportunity to Cure?

    U.S. Building Permits Soared to Their Highest Level in Nearly Eight Years

    Business Interruption Claim Upheld

    Supreme Court of Wisconsin Applies Pro Rata Allocation Based on Policy Limits to Co-Insurance Dispute

    Waiving Workers’ Compensation Immunity for Indemnity: Demystifying a Common and Scary-Looking Contract Term

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Motions to Dismiss, Limitations of Liability, and More

    Do Not Forfeit Coverage Under Your Property Insurance Policy

    MBIA Seeks Data in $1 Billion Credit Suisse Mortgage Suit

    Apartment Boom in Denver a Shortcut Around Condo Construction Defect Suits?

    Duty to Defend Requires Payments Under Policy's Supplemental Payments Provision

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    A Quick Checklist for Subcontractors

    Happy Thanksgiving from CDJ

    Four Ways Student Debt Is Wreaking Havoc on Millennials

    Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company

    A Special CDJ Thanksgiving Edition

    The Construction Industry Lost Jobs (No Surprise) but it Gained Some Too (Surprise)

    Modern Tools Are Key to Future-Proofing the Construction Industry

    The Texas Supreme Court Limits the Use of the Economic Loss Rule
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    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

    After Breaching Its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Pay Market Rates for Defense Counsel

    October 30, 2023 —
    After breaching its duty to defend, the insurer could not take advantage of a California statute allowing insurers to establish rates for defense counsel. S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151695 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2023). Edison was an additional insured under a policy issued by Greenwich Insurance Company to Utility Tree Service, Inc. (UTS). UTS contracted with Edison to provide vegetation management services near Edison's transmission lines. The Greenwich policy provided additional insured coverage to third parties to the extent of UTS's obligations under the contract. Edison was sued in numerous lawsuits for property damage caused by the Bobcat wildfire in the Angeles National Forest (Bobcat Wildfire lawsuits). Edison tendered the defense in each lawsuit to Greenwich. Coverage was denied, however, based on a lack of underlying allegations or extrinsic evidence that Edison's liability resulted from UTS's negligent actions. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Meet Orange County Bar Associations 2024 Leaders

    April 08, 2024 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to share that CEO/Founding Partner Nicole Whyte and Orange County Bar Association’s (“OCBA”) leaders are featured in the Orange County Lawyer (“OCL”) publication, Who’s Who In The OCBA, that was released earlier this month. To see this year’s 2024 board of directors, section leaders, committee chairs, task forces, and charitable fund board, please click here. Nicole Whyte provides individualized counseling and representation in all areas of Family Law. She has served on various OCBA legal committees and boards for over two decades and was elected to OCBA’s Board of Directors in 2024. She is committed to supporting the needs of the OCBA and its thriving and diverse OC legal community. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Contract Void Ab Initio: Key Insights into the KBR vs. Corps of Engineers Affirmative Defense

    February 12, 2024 —
    In a recent Board decision dated December 13, 2023, the United States Army Corps of Engineers sought to amend its answer in the case of APPEALS OF – KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC., under Contract No. W912GB-13-C-0011. The proposed amendment introduces an affirmative defense, contending that Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (KBR) made material misrepresentations in its proposal, rendering the fully-performed contract void ab initio. Background: The contract in question, executed on July 9, 2013, was for the construction of an Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System site in Deveselu, Romania, with a firm, fixed-price amount of $134,211,592. The Corps moved to amend its answer to allege that KBR’s material misrepresentations induced the Corps to enter the contract, justifying the voiding of the contract. The alleged misrepresentations include issues related to subcontractor quotes, firm fixed prices, subcontracting plans, and more. Motion to Amend and Legal Defense: The Corps, despite delays in formally amending its answer, argued that KBR was aware of the potential affirmative defense before the conclusion of fact discovery. The proposed affirmative defense asserts that KBR made eight material misrepresentations in its proposal, upon which the Corps relied in awarding the contract and defending against a GAO protest. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Matthew DeVries, Burr & Forman LLP
    Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@burr.com

    Unpredictable Power Surges Threaten US Grid — And Your Home

    April 08, 2024 —
    Paul LeBlanc was barefoot when he stepped outside that morning. He was taking the trash out when he saw the red glow of flames engulfing a nearby home. A former firefighter, LeBlanc grabbed his shoes before racing across the street. He smashed a window, then rushed inside. The only person believed to be home was a teenage boy who had already escaped, luckily with just minor burns. Alarms blared “fire” loudly, again and again, blasting from homes through the area. “I’ve been in buildings without protection before — I just wanted to make sure no one was stuck in there,” said LeBlanc, who spent more than three decades as a firefighter before retiring. The damage to the Alonge family’s four-bedroom home built in the early 1800s was so bad they haven’t been able to return since the blaze in June. The source of the conflagration in Waltham, Massachusetts, came from a facility about 2 miles west of the home. An electric substation, which had been dealing with a rodent infestation, had a sudden, unstable surge in voltage. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Naureen S Malik, Bloomberg

    Navigating the Construction Burrito: OCIP Policies in California’s Construction Defect Cases

    November 16, 2023 —
    In the early 2000’s, Owner-Controlled Insurance Programs (OCIP) or WRAPS, were traditionally used in large commercial projects of over $50 million in construction costs. As construction defect lawsuits became more prevalent, subcontractors found themselves unable to meet the insurance requirements of their contracts with developers and general contractors because they could not find insurance companies that were willing to insure the risk. This presented a problem for developers and general contractors and left them with no option but to look into new insurance products that would insure them and all subcontractors who worked on the project. OCIPs became in some instances the only insurance option for developers, general contractors, and subcontractors to build single-family or multi-family projects in California and other western states. OCIPS or WRAPS, often likened to the layers of a savory burrito, offer both enticing benefits and potential pitfalls. Just as a burrito’s ingredients can harmonize or clash, OCIP policies can shape the outcome of legal battles, impacting contractors, developers, and insurers alike. Pros – Savoring the OCIP Burrito: 1. Wrapped Protection: Much like a well-folded burrito envelops its contents, OCIP policies offer comprehensive coverage for construction projects. Developers, general contractors, and subcontractors find comfort in knowing that their liability risks are bundled into a single policy, ensuring all enrolled parties have coverage in the event of a claim. Reprinted courtesy of Alexa Stephenson, Kahana Feld and Ivette Kincaid, Kahana Feld Ms. Stephenson may be contacted at astephenson@kahanafeld.com Ms. Kincaid may be contacted at ikincaid@kahanafeld.com Read the full story...

    Clean Energy and Conservation Collide in California Coastal Waters

    March 19, 2024 —
    Two of President Joe Biden’s biggest priorities — conservation and the switch to clean energy — are colliding in the ocean off California’s quiet Central Coast. Located halfway between San Francisco and Los Angeles, Morro Bay boasts a rich ecosystem of fish, otters and migrating whales that the Indigenous Chumash people want to protect with a new marine sanctuary. But 20 miles (32 kilometers) out, developers plan some of the West Coast’s first offshore wind farms, where 1,100-foot-tall turbines (335 meters) tethered to the seabed will help California cut its carbon emissions. One US government agency appears poised to approve the sanctuary. Another already leased 376 square miles of ocean for wind development, just outside the sanctuary’s boundaries. Now, a fight is brewing over whether the scenic bay itself should be left out of the sanctuary, to give undersea power cables from the wind farms a place to come onshore. Reprinted courtesy of Nadia Lopez, Bloomberg and Josh Saul, Bloomberg Read the full story...

    Top Developments March 2024

    April 22, 2024 —
    CLAIMS-MADE COVERAGE Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Syngenta Crop Prot. LLC, 2024 Del. LEXIS 68 (Del. Feb. 26, 2024) Delaware Supreme Court concludes that a letter from a lawyer informing an insured of possible lawsuits without identifying potential plaintiffs or demanding payment is not a “claim for damages” within the meaning of claims-made CGL and umbrella liability policies. Citing case law from Delaware and other jurisdictions, it reasoned that, in the ordinary sense, a “claim for damages” (which the policies did not define) is “a demand or request for monetary relief by or on behalf of an identifiable claimant.” According to the court, the letter in question did not meet this definition because it did not identify any claimants “except in the vaguest terms” or request monetary relief on any claimant’s behalf, but rather communicated only a threat of future litigation. As a result, the letter was not a claim made before the policy periods at issue. POLLUTION EXCLUSION Wesco Ins. Co. v. Brad Ingram Constr., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1488 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2024) A divided Ninth Circuit panel, applying California law, holds that a pollution exclusion* in a CGL policy does not preclude a duty to defend an underlying suit alleging physical injury from exposure to “clouds of toxic dust” deposited in the environment by a wildfire and released during clean up efforts. Citing MacKinnon v. Truck Ins. Exch., 73 P.3d 1205 (Cal. 2003), the majority explained that determining whether a “pollution event” (i.e., “environmental pollution”) resulting in excluded injury has occurred involves consideration of “the character of the injurious substance” and whether the exposure resulted from a “mechanism specified in the policy.” It concluded that a potential for coverage (and, therefore, a defense obligation) existed because, although wildfire debris may be considered a “pollutant” in certain circumstances, the mechanism alleged in the underlying complaint – “expos[ure] . . . to clouds of toxic dust during the loading and unloading of [the underlying plaintiff’s] truck” – did not clearly constitute an “event commonly thought of as pollution.” Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Build, Baby, Build. But Not Like This, Britain.

    March 04, 2024 —
    The UK needs to do a lot more building. A lack of access to physical and digital connections is holding back the economy, the government says. Besides tackling the housing crisis, the country has to construct more roads, railways, wind farms and reservoirs to open up opportunity and drive productivity. The only problem is that Britain is notoriously inept at delivering infrastructure projects on time and within budget. The advantage of doing things badly is that at least you get to learn from your mistakes — in theory. Updates this month have offered some illuminating insights into two of the biggest civil-engineering undertakings in the country: High-Speed Rail 2, better known as HS2, and Hinkley Point C, which will be Britain’s first new nuclear power station since 1995. Here are five lessons that can be drawn from the issues encountered by two projects with a combined bill that’s likely to exceed £100 billion ($127 billion): Don't take budgets too seriously — especially at the start. Fixing an initial budget that was too low may have done much to feed later perceptions that HS2’s costs were spiraling out of control. The original estimate for the expanded train network was set too early and based on “very immature data,” Jon Thompson, appointed executive chair of High Speed 2 Ltd. in February last year, told the House of Commons transport committee. Numbers get more accurate and reliable as work progresses and the quality of information improves. What were viewed as cost blowouts partly reflected this process. The effect was unfortunate, undermining political support for HS2 and providing cover for cutbacks that have reduced the network to a single line between London and Birmingham that fails to fulfill most of its original purpose. To avoid this problem: Stick to a range rather than a single figure, and make sure people understand the uncertainties inherent in early-stage estimates. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Brooker, Bloomberg