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


    Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

    Construction Firm Sues City and Engineers over Reservoir Project

    More Reminders that the Specific Contract Terms Matter

    California Supreme Court Allows Claim Under Unfair Competition Statute To Proceed

    Look Up And Look Out: Increased Antitrust Enforcement Of Horizontal No-Poach Agreements Signals Heightened Scrutiny Of Vertical Agreements May Be Next

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

    Defend Trade Secret Act of 2016–-Federalizing Trade Secret Law

    Construction Reaches Half-Way Point on San Diego's $2.1 Billion Mid-Coast Trolley

    Read Before You Sign: Claim Waivers in Project Documents

    Second Circuit Denies Petitions for Review of EPA’s Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures

    PSA: New COVID Vaccine ETS Issued by OSHA

    Important Information Regarding Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Rights.

    Travelers v. Larimer County and the Concept of Covered Cause of Loss

    Former NJ Army Base $2B Makeover is 'Buzzsaw' of Activity

    Solar Power Inc. to Build 30-Megawatt Project in Inner Mongolia

    Freddie Mac Eases Mortgage Rules to Limit Putbacks

    San Francisco International Airport Reaches New Heights in Sustainable Project Delivery

    New LG Headquarters Project Challenged because of Height

    Deadline for Hurricane Ian Disaster Recovery Applications Announced

    Los Angeles Construction Sites May Be on Fault Lines

    US Supreme Court Orders All Mountain Valley Gas Line Work to Proceed

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

    Two More Lawsuits Filed Over COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

    Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage for Injury To Subcontractor's Employee

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Affirms Broker's Liability for Failure to Renew Coverage

    Eleventh Circuit Upholds Coverage for Environmental Damage from Sewage, Concluding It is Not a “Pollutant”

    Supply Chain Delay Recommendations

    Hurry Up and Wait! Cal/OSHA Hits Pause on Emergency Temporary Standards for COVID-19 Prevention

    Philadelphia Court Rejects Expert Methodology for Detecting Asbestos

    Public Policy Prevails: Homebuilders and Homebuyers Cannot Agree to Disclaim Implied Warranty of Habitability in Arizona

    Plans Go High Tech

    Florida “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” and “Your Work” Exclusion

    Heathrow Speeds New-Runway Spending Before Construction Approval

    Withdrawal of an Admission in California May Shift Costs—Including Attorneys’ Fees—Incurred in Connection with the Withdrawal

    Congratulations to Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, Vik Nagpal, and Devin Gifford, and Associates Shelly Mosallaei and Melissa Youngpeter on Their Inclusion in 2024 Best Lawyers in America!

    New Jersey Condominium Owners Sue FEMA

    Contract Not So Clear in South Carolina Construction Defect Case

    Arizona Purchaser Dwelling Actions Are Subject to a New Construction

    South Carolina Homeowners May Finally Get Class Action for Stucco Defects

    A New AAA Study Confirms that Arbitration is Faster to Resolution Than Court – And the Difference Can be Assessed Monetarily

    Congress Addresses Homebuilding Credit Crunch

    A Landlord’s Guide to California’s New Statewide Rent Control Laws

    Eleven WSHB Lawyers Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars

    America’s Infrastructure Gets a C-. It’s an Improvement Though

    Construction Firms Complain of Missed Payments on Redevelopment Project

    New-Home Sales in U.S. Unexpectedly Fall to Four-Month Low

    Maybe Supervising Qualifies as Labor After All

    Do Municipal Gas Bans Slow the Clean Hydrogen Transition in Real Estate?

    Court of Appeals Issues Decision Regarding Second-Tier Subcontractors and Pre-Lien Notice

    Insurance Litigation Roundup: “Post No Bills!”
    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

    ASCE Releases First-of-its-Kind Sustainable Infrastructure Standard

    October 24, 2023 —
    RESTON, VA — The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) today released a first-of-its-kind standard, ASCE/COS 73-23: Standard Practice for Sustainable Infrastructure, which provides guidance for infrastructure owners to develop and implement sustainable solutions through a project's entire life cycle. It is a non-mandatory, performance-based standard designed for civil infrastructure ranging from transportation projects to water systems to the energy grid, developed over a period of five years involving a multitude of diverse stakeholders. ASCE President Maria Lehman noted, "This is a transformational standard that for the first time will establish consensus guidance on how infrastructure owners should address sustainability in their projects. As of early September, there have been 23 confirmed weather/climate disaster events in the U.S. with losses exceeding $1 billion. That's almost one every week and a half. Sustainability and resilience are more important than ever. Infrastructure owners and designers have a responsibility to develop and implement practices that promote sustainability and long-term reliability of infrastructure projects, while also being cost-effective and collaborative with community stakeholders." The standard complements existing ASCE standards and tools like the Envision rating system. A discussion and examination of the ASCE/COS 73-23 standard will be held at the ASCE INSPIRE 2023 Conference in Arlington, Virginia from November 16th-18th. Print copies of the standard will also be available for purchase at the conference. Click here to register for the event and learn more about sustainable and resilient innovations in the civil engineering space. To purchase the standard, visit the link here. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel.

    Be Sure to Bring Up Any Mechanic’s Lien Defenses Early and Often

    November 27, 2023 —
    As those of you who regularly read Musings are aware, mechanic’s liens are a big part of my law practice and a big issue here at this construction law blog. I’ve discussed the picky requirements of the mechanic’s lien statutes in Virginia and how the 90 and 150-day rules are strictly enforced. However, a recent case out of the City of Norfolk Virginia Circuit Court cautions that while failure to meet these strict requirements may invalidate a lien, it only does so if the owner or general contractor seeking to invalidate the lien argues the invalidity and/or presents evidence of that invalidity either pretrial or during trial. In Premier Restoration LLC v. Barnes, the Court considered the following facts. The defendant homeowners had a house fire and the resulting damage was the subject of an insurance claim that was paid and checks sent to the homeowners. Premier filed a mechanic’s lien in response to Barnes’s failure to pay for Premier’s restoration construction services after Barnes’s home was destroyed by fire. Premier seeks a decree to enforce the lien, asking the court to order the sale of Barnes’s property to recover its damages or, alternatively, a judgment in its favor. With the Complaint seeking enforcement of the lien and damages for breach of contract, and this is a key point, Premier provided a copy of the mechanic’s lien along with the affidavit that is part of the statutory form swearing that the Owner was justly indebted to Premiere. The homeowners filed a counterclaim for unfinished work, including unfinished punch list work. After a trial during which no evidence regarding either the timeliness of the lien recording or whether any of the work sought to be encompassed in the lien was performed outside of the statutory 150-day window was presented by either side, the defendants filed a post-trial motion seeking to invalidate the lien as including sums for work outside of the 150-day window. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Blog Completes Sixteenth Year

    January 29, 2024 —
    Insurance Law Hawaii completes its sixteenth year this month. We began posting in December 2002, 1761 posts ago. The year 2023 has added 105 new posts. The goal is to keep readers in tune with new developments in insurance-related cases from Hawaii and across the country. This year included a big case handled successfully by our office regarding insurers attempt to gain reimbursement of defense costs for uncovered claims. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., et. al v. Bodell Construction Co., et. al, 2023 Haw. LEXIS 194 (Haw. Nov. 14, 2023). We will continue posting important coverage developments in the next year. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Stuck on You”

    March 04, 2024 —
    A “contract of adhesion” is referred to as a standard form contract – usually preprinted – “prepared by a party of superior bargaining power for adherence or rejection of the weaker party.” Yet, it is not the nature of the contract alone which determines its enforceability, but, instead, “whether a party truly consented to all of the printed terms.” A Louisiana plaintiff fighting a forum selection clause in a construction contract sought to have the clause nullified, urging that the clause was “buried” in the agreement and in small font, arguing also that the contractor had “superior bargaining position at the time of entering into the contract… because [plaintiff] needed to repair the hurricane damage” to his home as soon as possible. In response, the contractor urged that the contract was not executed under rush conditions, and that, in any event, the contract was only two pages long – and the forum selection clause was not hidden and was in the same font as all of the other provisions in the contract. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 New York – Metro Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

    October 24, 2023 —
    Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that seven Partners from the Hawthorne, NY Office have been selected to the 2023 New York - Metro Super Lawyers list. In addition, one associate has been named to the 2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. 2023 New York – Metro Super Lawyers 2023 New York – Metro Super Lawyers Rising Stars Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team on Obtaining a Defense Verdict in Favor of their Subcontractor Client!

    April 02, 2024 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara’s Newport Beach Partner Morgan Stiefel and Associate Brandon Cook obtained a defense verdict after years-long litigation in favor of their subcontractor client. This lawsuit stemmed from a claim made by Plaintiff for eye injuries arising out of claimed negligence and strict liability associated with our client’s performance of a sandblasting job at a construction site adjacent to Plaintiff’s home. Plaintiff alleges that while she was in her backyard, sand hit her in the eyes at a high velocity speed, resulting in permanent damage to her eyes. We argued our clients took all necessary safety precautions in the performance of this job, and Plaintiff’s eye irritation symptoms could not have been caused by our client. All of her alleged injuries were either pre-existing or could be explained by circumstances other than our client’s actions. Through expert testimony and our arguments, we were able to show the jury that Plaintiff lied about the sand entering her eyes at a high velocity and her symptoms being caused by our clients’ performance of the sandblasting job. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    The Requirement to State a “Sum Certain” No Longer a Jurisdictional Bar to Government Contract Claims

    November 13, 2023 —
    The Boards of Contract Appeals, Court of Federal Claims, and the Federal Circuit have long held that the elements of a claim under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) to be jurisdictional. Those requirements are as follows: (a) Claims generally.– (1) Submission of contractor’s claims to contracting officer.–Each claim by a contractor against the Federal Government relating to a contract shall be submitted to the contracting officer for a decision. (2) Contractor’s claims in writing.—Each claim by a contractor against the Federal Government relating to a contract shall be in writing. (3) Contracting officer to decide Federal Government’s claims.–Each claim by the Federal Government against a contractor relating to a contract shall be the subject of a written decision by the contracting officer. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Marcos R. Gonzalez, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Gonzalez may be contacted at mgonzalez@pecklaw.com

    Appraisal Panel Can Determine Causation of Loss under Ohio Law

    February 19, 2024 —
    The federal district court granted the insured's motion to compel an appraisal that would include a determination of causation of the loss. Eagle Highland Owners Association v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220937 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 12, 2023). Plaintiff argued its property suffered wind and hail damage from a storm on June 18, 2021. A claim was submitted to State Farm. State Farm's investigation determined the loss to be $0.00. Plaintiff's investigator determined the loss to be $586,647.08 in repair costs. State Farm opposed appraisal because, in its view, the damage arose from a loss in 2019, not from the June 18, 2021 storm. Plaintiff submitted a loss claim in 2019 for damage that State Farm alleged was exactly the same as the damage alleged in the loss claim for the June 18, 2021 storm. Therefore, State Farm did not view the matter as a dispute over an amount of loss, but rather over whether a loss even occurred on June 18, 2021. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com