BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance 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


    Erdogan Vows to Punish Shoddy Builders Ahead of Crucial Election

    When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

    A Top U.S. Seller of Carbon Offsets Starts Investigating Its Own Projects

    Safety Accusations Fly in Dispute Between New York Developer and Contractor

    DOE Abruptly Cancels $13B Cleanup Award to BWXT-Fluor Team

    Hong Kong Popping Housing Bubbles London Can’t Handle

    Are You a Construction Lienor?

    Four Dead After Crane Collapses at Google’s Seattle Campus

    Ohio School Board and Contractor Meet to Discuss Alleged Defects

    What You Need to Know About the Recently Enacted Infrastructure Bill

    Mechanic’s Liens and Leases Don’t Often Mix Well

    CDJ’s #10 Topic of the Year: Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216.

    Candlebrook Adds Dormitories With $230 Million Purchase

    New York State Trial Court: Non-Cumulation Provision in Excess Policies Mandates “All Sums” Allocation

    Changes and Extra Work – Is There a Limit?

    Remodel Gets Pricey for Town

    Ohio “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

    New York Court Rejects Owner’s Bid for Additional Insured Coverage

    The Case For Designers Shouldering More Legal Responsibility

    Best Practices for ESI Collection in Construction Litigation

    The Vallagio HOA Appeals the Decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals

    Texas Condo Construction Defect Code Amended

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2017

    Partners Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe Secure Seventh Circuit Win for Insurer Client in Late Notice Dispute

    Your Construction Contract

    Social Engineering Scams Are On the Rise – Do I Have Insurance Coverage for That?

    Beware of Personal-Liability Clauses – Even When Signing in Your Representative Capacity

    Ambitious Building Plans in Boston

    Trump Sues Casinos to Get Conditions Fixed or Name Off

    LA Metro To Pay Kiewit $297.8M Settlement on Freeway Job

    Construction Defects and Commercial General Liability in Illinois

    Construction Defect Reform Dies in Nevada Senate

    Building Permits Hit Five-Year High

    Key Legal Considerations for Modular Construction Contracts

    Insurance Coverage Litigation Section to Present at Hawaii State Bar Convention

    Meet the Hipster Real Estate Developers Building for Millennials

    Appreciate The Risks You Are Assuming In Your Contract

    Everyone’s Working From Home Due to the Coronavirus – Is There Insurance Coverage for a Data Breach?

    Independent Contractor v. Employee. The “ABC Test” Does Not Include a Threshold Hiring Entity Test

    This Company Wants to Cut Emissions to Zero in the Dirty Cement Business

    Don’t Be Lazy with Your Tenders

    What is the True Value of Rooftop Solar Panels?

    Colorado Springs may be Next Colorado City to Add Construction Defects Ordinance

    Montana Federal District Court Finds for Insurer in Pollution Coverage Dispute

    Feds to Repair Damage From Halted Border Wall Work in Texas, California

    Spotting Problem Projects

    New Illinois Supreme Court Trigger Rule for CGL Personal Injury “Offenses” Could Have Costly Consequences for Policyholders

    Legislative Update – The CSLB’s Study Under SB465

    Excess Insurer On The Hook For Cleanup Costs At Seven Industrial Sites

    Builders Seek to Modify Scaffold Law
    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. Leveraging 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

    Federal Magistrate Judge Recommends Rescission of Policies

    February 12, 2024 —
    In the recent case of Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. 142 Driggs LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220393, Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recommended granting the insurer's default judgment and holding that of three policies issued to 142 Driggs LLC ("Driggs") be rescinded ab initio. Driggs had represented on its insurance applications that it did not provide parking to anyone other than itself, tenants, and its guests at the subject insured premises. However, Union Mutual learned that Driggs had been renting out three garages to non-tenants. Second, Driggs represented that the mercantile square footage was around 1,000 square feet, when in actuality, it was larger than allowed under the policies. Union Mutual provided underwriting guidelines in connection with its default motion, which state that "parking provided for anyone other than the insured, tenants and their guests," presents an "unacceptable risk." The guidelines also state that answering yes to any "preliminary application questions (which presumably included those regarding mercantile square footage and parking) is an "unacceptable risk." The court held that these guidelines supported a finding that Driggs made material misrepresentation and that Union Mutual relied on these misrepresentations in issuing the policies. The court, as such, recommended that the policies at issue be rescinded from inception. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

    Homeowner Who Wins Case Against Swimming Pool Contractor Gets a Splash of Cold Water When it Comes to Attorneys’ Fees

    February 05, 2024 —
    Looking outside as of late it seems like the glorious, sun-drenched days of Summer are just a nostalgic memory of days long gone. So, to bring back some of those warm-weather memories, I have a swimming pool case for you. Although, like most of the things we write about here on the California Construction Law Blog it’s not all fun-in-the-sun. The Lee Case In Lee v. Cardiff, 94 Cal.App.5th 398 (2023), Homeowner Dianne Lee entered into a construction contact with contractor David Brian Cardiff doing business as Advantage Pools Bay Area for a swimming pool and landscaping project totaling $231,500. It must have been quite a pool. As these things sometimes go, a dispute arose and Cardiff left the job before its was finished. Lee later sued alleging breach of contract, negligent construction and violation of the Contractor State License Law. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    McDermott International and BP Team Arbitrate $535M LNG Site Dispute

    April 02, 2024 —
    BP and Kosmos Energy are seeking “maximum recoverable damages” of about $535 million in binding arbitration with contractor McDermott International over a claim that it failed to meet contract obligations on subsea pipeline installation for an estimated $4.8 billion liquefied natural gas project off Africa. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story...

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (3/20/24) – Construction Backlog Falls, National Association of Realtors Settle Litigation, and Commercial Real Estate Market’s Effect on City Cuts

    April 15, 2024 —
    In our latest roundup, bad loans outweigh loss reserves at top six U.S. banks, the FCC announces a proposed rule aimed at “bulk billing,” office-to-multifamily conversion projects grow in major metro cities, and more!
    • The National Association of Realtors has agreed to settle litigation that accused them of artificially inflating real estate commissions – a major decision that could reshape the housing market for buyers, sellers and agents. (Rachel Siegel, The Washington Post)
    • An NYU professor considers the positives and negatives of cities cutting services or raising other kinds of taxes to offset the continued faltering of the commercial real estate market. (Alan Rappeport, The New York Times)
    • Construction backlog fell in February for every size of contractor except for those with under $30 million in annual revenue, while, over the past year, the largest contractors – those with greater than $50 million in revenue – have experienced the greatest decline in backlog. (Sebastian Obando, Construction Dive).
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Compliance with Contractual and Jurisdictional Pre-Suit Requirements is Essential to Maximizing Recovery

    November 27, 2023 —
    Timely notice is an important first step in a successful insurance recovery. But insurance policies are not always straightforward in identifying how, when, and to whom notice must be provided. Some states may also impose additional procedural hurdles, including requiring policyholders to contact their insurers before filing suit (the idea behind this requirement is that it may avoid litigation). Failing to comply with pre-suit requirements can hurt the policyholder’s recovery, as illustrated in a recent decision from the Northern District of Texas. In NewcrestImage Holdings, LLC v. The Travelers Lloyds Insurance Company, No. 2:23-cv-039-BR (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2023), the court considered whether NewcrestImage had forfeited its right to recover attorneys’ fees by failing to give Travelers pre-suit notice. NewcrestImage had filed suit against Travelers to obtain coverage for damage to its hotel property arising out of Winter Storm Uri. In its answer, Travelers asserted that NewcrestImage failed to provide the insurer with pre-suit notice as required under the Texas Insurance Code, and that if NewcrestImage successfully proved it was entitled to coverage, NewcrestImage’s failure to provide pre-suit notice precluded it from recovering attorneys’ fees. Travelers later moved to strike the claim for attorneys’ fees on that basis. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Charlotte Leszinske, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Ms. Leszinske may be contacted at cleszinske@HuntonAK.com Read the full story...

    Future Army Corps Rulings on Streams and Wetlands: Changes and Delays Ahead

    November 06, 2023 —
    New regulations published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dramatically reduce federal protections of previously regulated streams and wetlands. This change will lead to further controversy and litigation as the legal terms are applied to physical features on the ground leading to conflicting interpretations by the regulated public, environmentalists and federal agencies. Reprinted courtesy of Mark Sudol, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story...

    Toronto Skyscraper With $1.2 Billion of Debt Has Been Put in Receivership

    November 16, 2023 —
    A landmark condominium project in one of Toronto’s ritziest neighborhoods has been put into receivership after construction delays and cost overruns. Construction of the 85-story tower will be taken over by a court-appointed receiver after its owners, developer Sam Mizrahi and investor Jenny Coco, defaulted on part of the project’s nearly C$1.7 billion in debt ($1.2 billion), according to a Wednesday order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Two funds run by South Korea-based IGIS Asset Management Co. applied for the receivership. Another IGIS fund will extend at least another C$315 million to continue work on the project, court documents said. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ari Altstedter, Bloomberg

    New York Revises Retainage Requirements for Private Construction Contracts: Overview of the “5% Retainage Law”

    January 22, 2024 —
    On November 17, 2023, the State of New York enacted the “5% Retainage Law.” This legislation effectively limits the amount of retainage that can be held from general contractors and subcontractors to no more than 5%. It applies to many but not all construction contracts. In addition, the new law revises late stage billing requirements, enabling contractors to invoice for retainage at substantial completion. Previously, the parties to a construction contract were free to negotiate any retainage amount, limited only by an unspecified “reasonable amount” that would be released as the parties contractually set forth. Summary The new law amends Sections 756-a and 756-c of the General Business Law (part of Article 35E of the GBL, known as the “Prompt Pay Act”), and applies to private construction contracts “where the aggregate cost of the construction project, including all labor, services, materials and equipment to be furnished, equals or exceeds one hundred fifty thousand dollars.” Reprinted courtesy of Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Patrick T. Murray, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Skyler L. Santomartino, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Mr. Murray may be contacted at pmurray@pecklaw.com Mr. Santomartino may be contacted at ssantomartino@pecklaw.com Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com Read the full story...