BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction 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


    Judge Tells DOL to Cork its Pistol as New Overtime Rule is Blocked

    CDJ’s #7 Topic of the Year: The Las Vegas Harmon Hotel Year-Long Demolition & Trial Begins

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “That’s Not How I Read It”

    Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage

    Three Firm Members Are Top 100 Super Lawyers & Ten Are Recognized As Super Lawyers Or Rising Stars In 2018

    Waiver of Subrogation Enforced, Denying Insurers Recovery Against Additional Insured in $500 Million Off-Shore Oil Rig Loss

    Kiewit Hired as EPC for Fire-Damaged Freeport Gas Terminal Fix

    Subrogation 101 (and Why Should I Care?)

    Construction Litigation Group Listed in U.S. News Top Tier

    Cooperating With Your Insurance Carrier: Is It a Must?

    Indicted Union Representatives Try Again to Revive Enmons

    Champagne Wishes and Caviar Dreams. Unlicensed Contractor Takes the Cake

    Trucks looking for Defects Create Social Media Frenzy

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    David A. Frenznick Awarded Multiple Accolades in the 2020 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America

    Nevada Senate Bill 435 is Now in Effect

    Illinois Court Addresses Coverage Owed For Subcontractor’s Defective Work

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    It’s Time to Change the Way You Think About Case Complexity

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    Distressed Home Sales Shrinking

    Notice and Claims Provisions In Contracts Matter…A Lot

    Nevada Insureds Can Rely on Extrinsic Facts to Show that An Insurer Owes a Duty to Defend

    BHA Expands Construction Experts Group

    Prior Occurrence Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defects

    County Sovereign Immunity Invokes Change-Order Ordinance

    Reinventing the Building Envelope – Interview with Gordon A Geddes

    Workers Hurt in Casino Floor Collapse

    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

    Learning from Production Homes of the Past

    DC Circuit Issues Two Important Clean Air Act and Administrative Law Decisions

    Texas Shortens Its Statute of Repose To 6 Years, With Limitations

    Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion

    Commonwealth Court Strikes Blow to Philly Window and Door Ordinance

    Don’t Believe Everything You Hear: Liability of Asbestos Pipe Manufacturer Upheld Despite Exculpatory Testimony of Plaintiff

    Insurance Law Alert: Ambiguous Producer Agreement Makes Agent-Broker Status a Jury Question

    Business Interruption, Food Spoilage Claims Resulting from Off Premise Power Failure Denied

    Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic

    Contractor Gets Green Light to Fix Two Fractured Girders at Salesforce Transit Center

    Construction Mediation Tips for Practitioners and 'Eyes Only' Tips for Construction Mediators

    Gene Witkin Joins Ross Hart’s Mediation Team at AMCC

    Insurer Must Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims

    New Jersey Firm’s Fee Action Tossed for not Filing Substitution of Counsel

    JD Supra’s 2017 Reader’s Choice Awards

    Certificates as Evidence of Additional Insured Coverage Are All the Rage, But You Deserve Better

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

    Contract, Breach of Contract, and Material Breach of Contract

    Proposed Bill Provides a New Federal Tax Credit for the Conversion of Office Buildings

    Construction Defect Settlement in Seattle

    Florida Governor Signs COVID-19 Liability Shield
    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

    Graham & Who May Trigger The Need To Protest

    December 23, 2023 —
    On May 30, 2023, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division I, issued a decision that appears to expand a contractor’s obligation with respect to WSDOT notice and claim procedures. In Graham Contracting, Ltd. v. City of Federal Way, No. 83494-1-I, 2023 WL 3721171 (Wash. Ct. App. May 30, 2023) (Unpublished), the Court held that under the 2016 WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (“Standard Specifications”), a Contractor must protest the actions of not only the “Engineer” but also the actions of any person or organization acting on behalf of the Owner. This case arises out of a public construction contract in which Graham Contracting Ltd (“Graham”) built a multi-million dollar roadway improvement for the City of Federal Way along a stretch of Pacific Highway. The appeal was from the trial court’s granting of the City’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims by Graham for extra time and money due to delays and impacts to Graham’s construction of the Project. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hugo Fraga, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Fraga may be contacted at hugo.fraga@acslawyers.com

    A Look at Trending Legislative Changes Impacting Workers' Comp

    February 26, 2024 —
    The tides are shifting in the construction industry when it comes to legal matters—and business owners could feel the brunt of it. Recent legislative changes in the state of New York could signal how workers’ compensation cases move forward across the country and impact business owners in the space. Arguably, New York has historically laid the groundwork for workers’ compensation law in numerous other states. Now, we’re seeing a clear shift in favor of workers with some of the recent legislative changes. Owners, operators and executives in the construction space have increasingly found themselves facing costly claims that in years prior carried a smaller dollar value and were largely viewed as inconsequential. So, what’s the best way for business owners in the construction industry to protect their businesses for the future? Start by gaining a basic understanding of changes in the legal landscape, by securing defense attorneys who know the construction space and by taking steps to protect your business before an incident happens. Reprinted courtesy of Rosanna Shamash, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

    Quick Note: October 1, 2023 Changes to Florida’s Construction Statutes

    November 13, 2023 —
    Effective October 1, 2023, there were changes to Florida’s statutory scheme dealing with construction projects. This includes Florida’s Lien Law. A copy of these changes can be found below which identify additions in blue and deletions with strikethroughs. No different than before, if you have questions or concerns as to your statutory rights on a construction project, do the prudent thing, consult a construction lawyer. A construction lawyer can help you understand changes to the applicable statutory scheme or how the statutory scheme pertains to your rights. This is important because you want to make sure you understand statutory changes that apply to your work and rights. A noteworthy change, bolded in blue below, is that there is now a basis to lien for a contractor performing construction management services “which include scheduling and coordinating construction and preconstruction phases for the construction project, or who provides program management services”:
    Fla. Stat. s. 713.01 (8) “Contractor” means a person other than a materialman or laborer who enters into a contract with the owner of real property for improving it, or who takes over from a contractor as so defined the entire remaining work under such contract. The term “contractor” includes an architect, landscape architect, or engineer who improves real property pursuant to a design- build contract authorized by s. 489.103(16). The term also includes a licensed general contractor or building contractor, as those terms are defined in s. 489.105(3)(a) and (b), respectively, who provides construction management services, which include scheduling and coordinating preconstruction and construction phases for the construction project, or who provides program management services, which include schedule control, cost control, and coordinating the provision or procurement of planning, design, and construction for the construction project.
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    No Coverage for Roof Collapse During Hurricane

    January 29, 2024 —
    The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that the insured's roof collapse was not covered. Exclusive Real Estate Inv., L.L.C. v. S.G.L. No. 1, Ltd., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 29368 (5th Cir. Nov. 3, 2023). A building owned by Exclusive Real Estate partially collapsed during a rain-storm. The insurer, SGL, inspected the roof and determined that there was no coverage. Exclusive sued SGL for breach of contract and bad faith. SGL moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the district court. Exclusive appealed. The poicy covered "direct physical loss to the property" caused by windstorms. Exclusions, however, precluded coverage for losses "caused by rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust unless the direct force of wind or hail damages the building causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust enters through this opening." Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    The Word “Estimate” in a Contract Matters as to a Completion Date

    February 12, 2024 —
    Language in a contract matters. The word “estimates” or “estimated” matters particularly when it comes to a date certain such as a substantial completion or completion date. Remember this. Here is an example. In Parque Towers Developers, LLC v. Pilac Management, Ltd., 49 Fla.L.Weekly D190a (Fla. 3d DCA 2024), a trial court held that the developer did not complete the construction of five condominium units by the date in the purchase agreements. The developer appealed because “[t]he agreements contain no date certain for the completion of the units, but rather include a clause that ‘Seller estimates it will substantially complete construction of the Unit, in the manner specified in this Agreement, by December 31, 2017, subject to extensions resulting from ‘Force Majeure (the ‘Outside Date’).’” Parque Towers, supra. Another provision in the purchase agreements stated, “[w]henver this Agreement requires Seller to complete or substantially complete any item of construction, that item will be understood to be complete or substantially complete when so completed or substantially completed in Seller’s opinion. Id. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update

    January 16, 2024 —
    Previously here at Musings, I discussed the application of pay if paid clauses and the Miller Act. The case that prompted the discussion was the Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. case in which the Eastern District of Virginia Federal Court determined that a “pay if paid” clause coupled with a proper termination could defeat a Miller Act bond claim. However, as I found out a couple of weeks ago at the VSB’s Construction Law and Public Contracts section meeting, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded this case in an unpublished opinion (Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co.) In it’s opinion, the 4th Circuit looked at some of the more “interesting” aspects of this case. One of these circumstances was that Syska (the general contractor) directed Aarow to construct sedimentary ponds and other water management measures around the project (the “pond work”), which both agreed was outside of the scope of the work defined in their subcontract. Syska asked that the government agree to a modification of the prime contract and asked Aarow to wait to submit its invoice for the pond work until after the government issued a modification to the prime contract and Syska issued a change order to the subcontract. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    DOI Aims to Modernize its “Inefficient and Inflexible” Type A Natural Resource Damages Assessment Regulations

    March 25, 2024 —
    The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) published a proposed rule aimed at modernizing and streamlining the “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). (The comment deadline was later extended.) The revisions, first previewed in a January 2023 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), are intended to fulfill “the original statutory purpose of providing a streamlined and simplified assessment process” with the overarching goal of facilitating settlements and expediting restoration efforts following injury resulting from pollution in a broader range of cases. The NRDA regulations provide two paths to assessing natural resource damages (NRD): (1) the more complex, site-specific Type B procedures for detailed NRDAs and (2) what is intended to be the standard, simplified Type A assessment procedures requiring minimal field observation. Particularly, the Type A process is reserved for two specific aquatic environments (coastal and marine areas or Great Lakes environments) when a relatively minor release of a single hazardous substance occurs, resulting in a smaller scale and scope of natural resource injury, and the rebuttal presumption for the Type A procedure is limited to damages of $100,000 or less under the current version of the rule. Reprinted courtesy of Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury, Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

    9th Circuit Plumbs Through the Federal and State False Claims Acts

    January 16, 2024 —
    You may have heard of the False Claims Act and know that it penalizes companies and individuals in contract with the government who present false claims. The federal False Claims Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 to penalize profiteers during the Civil War who were selling the Union Army moth eaten blankets, boxes of sawdust instead of guns, and sometimes re-selling the Army calvary horses several times over. Since then, many states, including California, as well as municipalities, have enacted their own false claim statutes. As currently written, the federal False Claims Act provides for statutory penalties against any person who:
    1. “[K]nowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval”;
    2. “[K]nowingly makes, uses or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim”;
    3. “[H]as possession, custody, or control of property or money used, or to be used, by the Government an knowingly delivers, or causes to be delivered, less than all of that money or property”;
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com