BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut 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


    Insured's Experts Excluded, But Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

    Equitable Lien Designed to Prevent Unjust Enrichment

    Hunton Andrews Kurth Associate Cary D. Steklof Selected to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite Up & Comers List for 2019

    Massive Redesign Turns Newark Airport Terminal Into a Foodie Theme Park

    What to do When the Worst Happens: Responding to a Cybersecurity Breach

    Additional Insured Prevails on Summary Judgment For Duty to Defend, Indemnify

    Infrastructure Money Comes With Labor Law Strings Attached

    Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable

    Erdogan Vows to Punish Shoddy Builders Ahead of Crucial Election

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2021 Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    Updates to the CEQA Guidelines Have Been Finalized

    North Carolina Court Rules In Favor Of All Sums

    California Imposes New Disabled Access Obligations on Commercial Property Owners

    Cause Still Unclear in March Retaining Wall Collapse on $900M NJ Interchange

    Judicial Economy Disfavors Enforcement of Mandatory Forum Selection Clause

    Contractor’s Claim for Interest on Subcontractor’s Defective Work Claim Gains Mixed Results

    Liability Insurer’s Duty To Defend Insured Is Broader Than Its Duty To Indemnify

    General Contractor’s Ability to Supplement Subcontractor Per Subcontract

    Predicting Our Future with Andrew Weinreich

    Will the Hidden Cracks in the Bay Bridge Cause Problems During an Earthquake?

    Beverly Hills Voters Reject Plan for Enclave's Tallest Building

    GAO Sustains Unsupported Past Performance Evaluation and Unequal Discussion Bid Protest

    BHA Sponsors 28th Annual Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TX

    Designers Face Fatal Pedestrian Bridge Collapse Fallout

    Jobsite Safety Should Be Every Contractors' Priority

    Philadelphia Revises Realty Transfer Tax Treatment of Acquired Real Estate Companies

    Seven Coats Rose Attorneys Named to Texas Rising Stars List

    When it Comes to Trials, it’s Like a Box of Chocolates. Sometimes You Get the Icky Cream Filled One

    Oregon Bridge Closed to Inspect for Defects

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/27/21)

    Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Vexed by Low Demand for Mortgages

    Chinese Hunt for Trophy Properties Boosts NYC, London Prices

    New York City Council’s Carbon Emissions Regulation Opposed by Real Estate Board

    What You Don’t Know About Construction Law Can Hurt Your Engineering Firm (Law Note)

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Policyholder Can “Stack” the Limits of Each Primary Policy After Asbestos Claim

    Court of Appeals Expands Application of Construction Statute of Repose

    Flood Coverage Denied Based on Failure to Submit Proof of Loss

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds Curb Construction Falls Within The Scope Of CASPA

    Reminder: The Devil is in the Mechanic’s Lien Details

    Los Angeles Seeks Speedier Way to Build New Affordable Homes

    Contract Disruptions: Navigating Supply Constraints and Labor Shortages

    Nader Eghtesad v. State Farm General Insurance Company

    Building Group Has Successful 2012, Looks to 2013

    In UK, 16th Century Abbey Modernizes Heating System by Going Back to Roman Times

    In Colorado, Primary Insurers are Necessary Parties in Declaratory Judgment Actions

    Loss Ensuing from Alleged Faulty Workmanship is Covered

    Why a Challenge to Philadelphia’s Project Labor Agreement Would Be Successful

    Significant Ruling in PFAS Litigation Could Impact Insurance Coverage

    General Contractor Supporting a Subcontractor’s Change Order Only for Owner to Reject the Change

    Going Digital in 2019: The Latest Technology for a Bright Future in Construction
    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

    Appraisal Award for Damaged Roof Tiles Challenged

    December 04, 2023 —
    The district court denied Travelers' motion for summary judgment and granted the insureds' motion in part regarding replacement of roof tiles damaged in a hail storm. Bertisen v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159649 (D. Colo. Sept. 8,2023). On May 8, 2017, the insureds' home was struck by a hailstorm that damaged their property. A Travelers inspector found damage to metal roof components, a deck, patio furniture and gutters. A partial payment of $6,381.04 was made. A further payment was made for personal property damaged by the storm. Travelers disputed that the hailstorm caused damage to all of the roof tiles. Travelers' adjustor reinspected the property and observed additional damages caused by hail and another payment of $6,605.22 was issued. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    From the Ashes: Reconstructing After the Maui Wildfire

    November 27, 2023 —
    On Tuesday, Aug. 8, a wildfire on the Hawaiian island of Maui ravaged the town of Lahaina, killing nearly 100 people and stranding thousands of survivors, many of whom remain displaced today. The loss of life makes this the deadliest American wildfire on record, while the material cost in property damage has been estimated at upwards of $5 billion. The response to the disaster has involved firefighters and other emergency personnel—and also engineering and construction professionals. One of them is Tam Kim, director of operations for West Maui Construction Inc., a civil contractor on the island. Originally from Oregon, Kim fell in love with Hawaii when he visited on a surfing vacation; eventually he took his technology background and helped found a startup company on Maui in 2008. Eight years later, the startup relocated to Oahu, but Kim stayed on Maui to forge a different path, one that would lead him somewhere he never imagined. Reprinted courtesy of Grace Calengor, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

    Washington Court Denies Subcontractor’s Claim Based on Contractual Change and Notice Provisions

    January 29, 2024 —
    The recent unpublished case, Cascade Civil Construction, LLC v. Jackson Dean Construction, Inc., et al.,[1] provides a legal justification for contractors to require a directive or change order in advance of performing changed work—thereby preventing the party who requested the changed work from later arguing that notice provisions were not complied with. In the case, Jackson Dean, the prime contractor, hired Cascade to perform excavation work on a project to build a new Costco Corporate headquarters. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and other issues, Jackson Dean directed resequencing, which required Cascade to perform excavation concurrent to dewatering. Jackson Dean also required deeper-than-planned excavation under one of the buildings. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wendy Rosenstein, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Rosenstein may be contacted at wendy.rosenstein@acslawyers.com

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Wrap Music to an Insurer’s Ears?”

    February 05, 2024 —
    The general contractor on a New Orleans condominium construction project obtained a Contractor Controlled Insurance Program/CCIP policy or "Wrap-Up" policy for the job. An accident occurred on the job when a construction elevator/hoist fell, injuring several workers. The elevator/hoist was provided by a subcontractor, pursuant to a rental agreement and related subcontract with the general contractor. Contained within the subcontract was a provision which states that the general contractor "has arranged for the Project to be insured under a controlled insurance program (the "CCIP" or "WrapUp"),” and that the CCIP shall provide "commercial general liability insurance and excess liability insurance, in connection with the performance of the Work at the Project site." A third-party administrator for the wrap-up policy had been in communication with the subcontractor prior to the commencement of the work, “specifically advising that insurance coverage was not automatic” and providing the subcontractor with an enrollment form for the CCIP. Ultimately, the subcontractor “declined to comply with the request,” stating that the subcontractor would "not participate in paying any wrap insurance premiums" – because the subcontractor had its own insurance. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Drawing the Line: In Tennessee, the Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Apply to Contracts for Services

    December 11, 2023 —
    In Commercial Painting Co. v. Weitz Co. LLC, No. W2019-02089-SC-R11-CV, 2023 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (Weitz), the Supreme Court of Tennessee (Supreme Court) considered whether the economic loss doctrine barred the plaintiff’s claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and punitive damages arising out of a contract with the defendant for construction services. The court held that the economic loss doctrine only applies to product liability cases and does not apply to claims arising from contracts for services. This case establishes that, in Tennessee, the economic loss doctrine does not bar tort claims in disputes arising from service contracts. In Weitz, defendant, Weitz Co. LLC (Weitz), was the general contractor for a construction project and hired plaintiff Commercial Painting Co. (Commercial) as a drywall subcontractor. Weitz refused to pay Commercial for several of its payment applications, claiming that the applications were submitted untimely and contained improper change order requests. Commercial filed a lawsuit against Weitz seeking over $1.9 million in damages, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, enforcement of a mechanic’s lien, and interest and attorney’s fees under the Prompt Pay Act of 1991. Weitz filed a counterclaim for $500,000 for costs allegedly incurred due to Commercial’s delay and defective workmanship. In response, Commercial amended its complaint to add claims for fraud, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, rescission of the contract and $10 million in punitive damages. Commercial alleged that Weitz received an extension of the construction schedule but fraudulently withheld this information from Commercial and continued to impose unrealistic deadlines. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent

    January 08, 2024 —
    On November 30, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion that overturned precedent in Illinois regarding whether faulty workmanship that only caused damage to the insured’s own work constituted “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under Illinois law. In Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, 2023 IL 129087, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether Acuity, a mutual insurance company, had a duty to defend its additional insured, M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC (M/I Homes), under a subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy in connection with an underlying lawsuit brought by a townhome owners’ association for breach of contract and breach of an implied warranty of habitability. The Cook County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Acuity finding no duty to defend because the underlying complaint did not allege “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the initial grant of coverage of the insurance policy. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that Acuity owed M/I Homes a duty to defend. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, in part, holding construction defects to the general contractor’s own work may constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the standard CGL Policy. This is significant as it overrules prior Illinois precedent finding that repair or replacement of the insured’s defective work does not satisfy the initial grant of coverage of a CGL Policy. By way of background, the underlying litigation stems from alleged construction defects in a residential townhome development in the village of Hanover Park, Illinois. The townhome owners’ association, through its board of directors (the Association) subsequently filed an action on behalf of the townhome owners for breach of contract and breach of the implied warranty of habitability against M/I Homes as the general contractor and successor developer/seller of the townhomes. The Association alleged that M/I Homes’ subcontractors caused construction defects by using defective materials, conducting faulty workmanship, and failing to comply with applicable building codes. As a result, “[t]he [d]efects caused physical injury to the [t]ownhomes (i.e. altered the exterior’s appearance, shape, color or other material dimension) after construction of the [t]ownhome[ ] was completed from repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions.” The defects included “leakage and/or uncontrolled water and/or moisture in locations in the buildings where it was not intended or expected.” The Association alleged that the “[d]efects have caused substantial damage to the [t]ownhomes and damage to other property.” Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

    Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

    November 13, 2023 —
    In order for a plaintiff to prove a defendant is negligent, the plaintiff must prove the defendant (1) owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the resulting monetary damage. However, for both plaintiffs and defendants it is not an all or nothing game in California. This is because California is a pure Comparative Negligence state. California’s Comparative Negligence law provides that even if a plaintiff is deemed 99% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 1% in damages from a defendant. Thus, even if a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault for the incident, the plaintiff could still recover some monetary amount, or the defendant will still have to pay plaintiff, depending on how you see it. In most instances, a jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party. Just as a plaintiff must prove he/she/its negligence case against a defendant, if the defendant claims plaintiff was partially responsible for the incident, the defendant must prove plaintiff was also negligent and said negligence contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. The total amount of monetary responsibility distributed among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%. As crazy as it may sound, a plaintiff found to be 99.9% at fault, is still entitled to recover 0.01% from a defendant in California. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Yaron Shaham, Kahana Feld
    Mr. Shaham may be contacted at yshaham@kahanafeld.com

    Spencer Mayer Receives Miami-Dade Bar Association's '40 Under 40' Award

    March 04, 2024 —
    Miami, Fla. (February 23, 2024) – Miami Associate Spencer Mayer received the 2024 Miami-Dade Bar Association Young Lawyers Section’s '40 under 40' Award at the association's annual "Miami Nights" event on February 22. Mr. Mayer serves on the Board of Directors of the Miami Dade Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Section. Lewis Brisbois was a proud sponsor of this event, which raised funds for the organization's community service initiatives and pro bono programming. Mr. Mayer is a member of the General Liability Practice. His practice focuses on all aspects of civil litigation, including complex commercial litigation, products liability, premises liability, wrongful death, catastrophic injury, and insurance coverage. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois