BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofing
    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


    Anchoring Abuse: Evolution & Eradication

    Delaware Supreme Court Allows Shareholders Access to Corporation’s Attorney-Client Privileged Documents

    U.S. Judge Says Wal-Mart Must Face Mexican-Bribe Claims

    Two Texas Cities Top San Francisco for Property Investors

    Florida's New Pre-Suit Notification Requirement: Retroactive or Prospective Application?

    Construction Wall Falls, Hurts Three

    Appellate Team Secures Victory in North Carolina Governmental Immunity Personal Injury Matter

    Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans for Contractors: Lessons From the Past

    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

    Customer’s Agreement to Self-Insure and Release for Water Damage Effectively Precludes Liability of Storage Container Company

    Drafting the Bond Form, Particularly Performance Bond Form

    Summary Judgment for Insurer Reversed Based on Expert Opinion

    America’s Infrastructure Gets a D+

    Connecticut Supreme Court to Review Several Issues in Asbestos Coverage Case

    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

    What You Need to Know About “Ipso Facto” Clauses and Their Impact on Termination of a Contractor or Subcontractor in a Bankruptcy

    Issue and Claim Preclusion When Forced to Litigate Similar Issues in Different Forums: White River Village, LLP v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland

    Preparing For the Worst with Smart Books & Records

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Utah for Damage Caused By Faulty Workmanship

    Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes Six Partners and Three Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    North Dakota Supreme Court Clarifies Breadth of Contractual Liability Coverage

    Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards

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

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim

    The Future of Construction Tech Is Decision Tech

    Melissa Dewey Brumback Invited Into Claims & Litigation Management Alliance Membership

    Shifting Fees and Costs in Nevada Construction Defect Cases

    City Potentially Liable for Cost Overrun on Not-to-Exceed Public Works Contract

    Jobsite Safety Should Be Every Contractors' Priority

    2017 California Construction Law Update

    Falling Tree Causing Three Injuries/Deaths Is One Occurrence

    Recommencing Construction on a Project due to a Cessation or Abandonment

    Title II under ADA Applicable to Public Rights-of-Way, Parks and Other Recreation Areas

    New 2021 ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey Standards Effective February 23, 2021

    Construction is the Fastest Growing Industry in California

    Builders Beware: Smart Homes Under Attack by “Hide ‘N Seek” Botnet

    Mitigation, Restructuring and Bankruptcy: Small Business Tools in the Era of COVID-19

    What ‘The Curse’ Gets Wrong About Passive House Architecture

    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

    Time is Money. Unless You’re an Insurance Company

    No Rest for the Weary: Project Completion Is the Beginning of Litigation

    Seven Trends That Impact Commercial Construction Litigation in 2021

    Appraisal Award for Damaged Roof Tiles Challenged

    PFAS: From Happy Mistake to Ubiquity to Toxic Liability (But is there coverage?)

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    Landlords Beware: Subordination Agreements

    Kiewit-Turner Stops Work on VA Project—Now What?

    California Joins the Majority of States in Modifying Its Survival Action Statute To Now Permit Recovery for Pain, Suffering And Disfigurement

    Delaware Strengthens Jurisdictional Defenses for Foreign Corporations Registered to Do Business in Delaware

    FHFA’s Watt Says Debt Cuts Possible for Underwater Homeowners
    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

    Illinois Joins the Pack on Defective Construction as an Occurrence

    December 16, 2023 —
    Illinois joins the majority of states finding “property damage that results inadvertently from faulty work can be caused by an ‘accident’ and therefore constitute an ‘occurrence’.” The Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling in Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC1 (“Acuity v. M/I Homes”) is the first high court ruling in Illinois on this critical coverage issue for contractors. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC (“M/I Homes”) constructed a townhome development. After completion, water entered the townhomes resulting in interior water damage. The townhome owners’ association filed suit against M/I Homes alleging it, or its subcontractors, caused the damage because it used defective materials, conducted faulty workmanship, and failed to comply with applicable building codes (the “Underlying Action”). Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com

    Federal Court Reiterates Broad Duty to Defend in Additional Insured Cases

    April 22, 2024 —
    In the recent case of Travelers Indem. Co. of Am. v. Accredited Sur. & Cas. Co., No. 21-CV-7189 (FB) (JRC), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44634 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2024), the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York had occasion to consider an additional insured tender on behalf of a prime contractor, Archstone, to a subcontractor, Topline, who was named as a direct defendant in a New York labor law case. Even though Topline’s carrier put forth evidence that Topline was not negligent, the court held, under New York’s broad duty to defend, that Topline’s carrier owed a duty to defend the prime contractor. Initially, the court was satisfied that a purchase order, signed only by Topline and not Archstone, was binding on Topline. That purchase order specified that Topline agreed to name Archstone as an additional insured. With respect to the duty to defend, the court found that it was enough that the underlying plaintiff alleged that all defendants, including Topline, were negligent in permitting a ladder that plaintiff was on to remain in a defective condition and in failing to foresee the existence of a hazard from the condition of the subject ladder. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

    Mass Timber Reduces Construction’s Carbon Footprint, But Introduces New Risk Scenarios

    March 04, 2024 —
    Mass timber has the potential to be a critical building component for the cities of the near future given the need for the construction sector to reduce its reliance on concrete and steel to lower its Co2 emissions. However, as this market grows and mass timber buildings evolve to greater heights, the construction risk landscape will also be transformed, bringing risk management challenges for companies, according to the new Emerging Risk Trend Talk report from Allianz Commercial. “The emergence of mass timber as a sustainable construction alternative represents a significant opportunity for the building sector to reduce its carbon footprint while also satisfying a demand for a material that is more cost-efficient but as durable as steel and concrete,” says Michael Bruch, Global Head of Risk Advisory Services at Allianz Commercial. “However, in any industry, deployment of new materials or processes can result in new risk scenarios, potential defects, or unexpected safety consequences, as well as bringing benefits, and mass timber is no different. Given this market’s expected future growth, companies should do all they can to develop a greater understanding of their exposures including fire, water damage, repetitive loss scenarios and even termite infestation, and ensure they have robust loss prevention measures in place to combat these.” The need for mass timber The building and construction sector is among the largest contributors to Co2 emissions, accounting for over 34% of energy demand and around 37% of energy and process related Co2 emissions in 2021 [1]. Given emissions reduction is essential to meet climate change commitments around the world, the need for more sustainable solutions in the built environment has become increasingly important, driven by growing investor and consumer concerns, and legislation, regulation and reporting requirements evolving quickly in many jurisdictions around the world. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Allianz Commercial

    No Coverage for Construction Defect Claim Only Impacting Insured's Work

    January 08, 2024 —
    In a coverage dispute between two insurers over a claim for damages caused by faulty workmanship, the court found there was no right to equitable contribution or indemnity. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Mallcraft, Inc., 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 67568 (Cal. Super. Ct. Sept. 15, 2023). Mallcraft was the general contractor for a building project and was sued for construction defects. Travelers was an additional insured under a policy issued to a subcontractor, KitCor. Travelers defended Mallcraft in an arbitration. Travelers sought equitable contribution and equitable indemnity from Hartford, Mallcraft's insurer. Mallcraft and Travelers stiulated to a judgment agianst Mallcraft for all costs Travelers incurred in the arbitration. Travelers' insured, KitCor, was not implicated in the construction defect claims against Mallcraft. The judgment set forth findings, including the fact that the underlying plaintiff never made any claim that KitCor perfomred work on the project or casued property damage. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Best Practices for Productive Rule 26(f) Conferences on Discovery Plans

    May 13, 2024 —
    In the April 4, 2024 edition of Division 1’s Toolbox Talk Series, Julian Ackert and Steve Swart presented on how to prepare for and structure Rule 26(f) conferences to be more effective. While Swart and Ackert focused on the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) regarding the requisite conference of the parties prior to a scheduling conference or scheduling order, it is worth noting that many states have substantially similar requirements. Rule 26(f) requires the parties to (i) discuss the nature and basis of their claims or defense; (ii) make or arrange for mandatory disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1); (iii) discuss issues about preserving discoverable information (including Electronically Stored Information – “ESI”); and (iv) develop a proposed discovery plan. Swart and Ackert’s presentation focused on the preservation of ESI and the proposed discovery plan. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas J. Mackin, Cozen O’Connor
    Mr. Mackin may be contacted at dmackin@cozen.com

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claim

    January 22, 2024 —
    The magistrate judge recommended a determination that the insurer owed a defense to the subcontractor sued for faulty workmanship. Hanover Lloyds Ins Co. v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180877 (W.D. Texas Oct. 5, 2023). Poe Investments, Ltd. entered into an agreement with Jordan Foster Construction, LLC for construction of an auto sales and service facility ("Facility"). Jordan hired multiple subcontractors, including Texas Electrical Contractors, LLC ("TEC"). Subsequently, Poe sold the Facility to 6330 Montana, LLC ("Montana"). Montana filed suit against Jordan for breach of express warranties, breach of contract, and negligence. Jordon filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractors, including TEC. Jordan alleged that TEC provided "defective and negligent construction work" while carrying out the provision and installation of electrical and fire alarm systems at the Facility. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Liability Coverage For Construction Claims May Turn On Narrow Factual Distinctions

    March 25, 2024 —
    In a recent trial court decision, a Montana federal court reminds us how fragile insurance coverage can be for construction-related insurance claims. Specifically, this case illustrates how seemingly small factual nuances can make or break coverage. The case turned on the application of policy provisions familiar to all who deal with these kinds of cases. (See Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Farrens, No. CV 22-193-M-DWM, 2024 WL 885109 (D. Mont. Mar. 1, 2024)) First, the court rebuffed the insurer’s argument that damage resulting from defective workmanship (in this case, the flawed design and installation of an elaborate floating-floor pool system) is not “caused by an occurrence.” The court correctly applied the test followed by most states: if either act causing injury is unintentional or the resulting injury is unexpected or unintended, the “occurrence” requirement is met. Fortunately, the court distinguished sloppy language from earlier Montana federal court decisions suggesting otherwise. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
    Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.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...