• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code 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

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    Six Inducted into California Homebuilding Hall of Fame

    New York Building Boom Spurs Corruption Probe After Death

    Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

    Liability Policy’s Arbitration Endorsement Applies to Third Party Beneficiaries, Including Additional Insureds

    Scope of Alaska’s Dump Lien Statute Substantially Reduced For Natural Gas Contractors

    Failure to Timely File Suit in Federal Court for Flood Loss is Fatal

    What You Need to Know About Notices of Completion, Cessation and Non-Responsibility

    CDJ’s #9 Topic of the Year: Nevada Supreme Court Denies Class Action Status in Construction Defect Case

    English v. RKK. . . The Rest of the Story

    New Jersey Supreme Court Ruled Condo Association Can’t Reset Clock on Construction Defect Claim

    Real-Estate Pros Fight NYC Tax on Wealthy Absentee Owners

    Uniform Rules Governing New York’s Supreme and County Courts Get An Overhaul

    Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

    Brazil World Cup Soccer Crisis Deepens With Eighth Worker Death

    White and Williams Obtains Reversal on Appeal of $2.5 Million Verdict Against Electric Utility Company

    Rhode Island Examines a Property Owner’s Intended Beneficiary Status and the Economic Loss Doctrine in the Context of a Construction Contract

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

    Trial Date Discussed for Las Vegas HOA Takeover Case

    Colorado Supreme Court Rules that Developers Retain Perpetual Control over Construction Defect Covenants

    Eighth Circuit Remands to Determine Applicability of Collapse Exclusion

    Brookfield Wins Disputed Bid to Manage Manhattan Marina

    Insurers Need only Prove that Other Coverage Exists for Construction Defect Claims

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    Previously Owned U.S. Home Sales Rise to Eight-Month High

    Making the World’s Longest Undersea Railway Tunnel Possible with BIM

    Professional Liability and Attorney-Client Privilege Bulletin: Intra-Law Firm Communications

    World Green Building Council Calls for Net-Zero Embodied Carbon in Buildings by 2050

    Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

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

    New York Court Holds Radioactive Materials Exclusion Precludes E&O Coverage for Negligent Phase I Report

    No Trial Credit in NJ Appellate Decision for Non-Settling Successive Tortfeasors – Must Demonstrate Proof of Initial Tortfeasor Negligence and Proximate Cause

    Wisconsin High Court Rejects Insurer’s Misuse of “Other Insurance” Provision

    Quick Note: Mitigation of Damages in Contract Cases

    Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim

    Ensuring Efficient Arbitration of Construction Disputes Involving Mechanic’s Liens

    Barratt Said to Suspend Staff as Contract Probe Continues

    AB5 Construction Exemption – A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5’s Three-Part Test

    Construction Defect Lawsuit May Affect Home Financing

    HUD Homeownership Push to Heed Lessons From Crisis, Castro Says

    Perrin Construction Defect Claims & Trial Conference

    Defining Catastrophic Injury Claims

    Contractual Waiver of Consequential Damages

    Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Gets Construction Defect Bill to Committee

    Dispute Over Exhaustion of Primary Policy

    Settlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National Union

    Some Insurers Dismissed, Others Are Not in Claims for Faulty Workmanship

    Lien Waivers Should Be Fair — And Efficient

    MetLife Takes Majority Stake in New San Francisco Office Tower
    Corporate Profile


    The Fairfield, Connecticut Construction Expert Witness Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    The Goldilocks Rule: Panel Rejects Proposed Insurer-Specific MDL Proceedings for Four Large Insurers, but Establishes MDL Proceeding for the Smallest

    November 16, 2020 —
    It is an outcome few people expected. Back in August, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Panel) refused plaintiffs’ requests to set up a single industry-wide multi-district litigation, which would have consolidated — in a single massive proceeding — all federal lawsuits seeking COVID-related business interruption coverage from insurers. The Panel acknowledged common legal issues, and potential benefits of coordinated management, but it balanced those benefits against the numerous factual differences between policies, carriers, and insureds, and noted that “[t]hese differences will overwhelm any common factual questions.” Then, after lengthy argument, the Panel ordered further briefing as to whether separate, company-specific MDL proceedings might be appropriate against five specific insurance carriers: specifically, the five carriers against whom the largest numbers of federal claims were pending. By choosing these five carriers and not others for further argument, the Panel seemed to be suggesting a formula: the larger the carrier, and the greater the number of claims against it, the greater the potential benefit from coordinated management, and the stronger the plaintiffs’ case for pre-trial consolidation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric Hermanson, White and Williams
    Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at

    Arkansas Federal Court Fans the Product Liability Flames Utilizing the Malfunction Theory

    September 14, 2020 —
    To establish a product liability claim in Arkansas, the plaintiff must prove that the product was supplied in a defective condition, which rendered it unreasonably dangerous and that the defective condition was the proximate cause of the claimed damage or injury. Ordinarily, a plaintiff relies upon direct evidence of a product defect to establish its product liability claim. However, in some cases, the product sustains so much damage that it is impossible for a plaintiff to obtain direct evidence of a defect. The malfunction theory allows a plaintiff in a product liability action to establish a defect through circumstantial evidence, when direct evidence of a defect no longer exists. In order to utilize the malfunction theory, a plaintiff must present evidence that an unspecified product defect was the most likely cause of the damage/accident and rule out all other possible causes of the damage/accident. In Am. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Broan-Nutone, No. 5:18-CV-5250, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117116, the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas ruled that the plaintiff offered sufficient evidence under “the malfunction theory” to defeat a summary judgment motion in a product liability action involving a bathroom fan that was destroyed in a fire. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at

    Powering Goal Congruence in Construction Through Smart Contracts

    February 22, 2021 —
    The $814 billion U.S. commercial construction market requires a unique assembly of designers, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers to work together in a highly orchestrated manner to make sure that the right labor, material, equipment, tools and information all comes together at the right place and time. Alignment and coordination between companies is critical for a project to be successful; completed safely, on time, on budget and resulting in an asset that performs as designed. Yet the industry is slowed by an operating model bogged down by transactional and informational barriers that destroys value across the construction supply chain. Companies are connected through contracts and purchase orders that are undercut by mistrust that yields adversarial relationships and conflicting priorities that result in restricted transparency, elongated payment cycles and an abundance of resource-sucking reconciliations, audits and disputes. With margins already razor thin, company protectionism cascades down from owners, developers and operators to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers with each player focused on optimizing their piece at the expense of the whole. Perhaps this is part of the reason 98% of megaprojects experience cost overruns or delays, 95% of projects are unable to meet even one business objective; and 70% of all construction projects are not completed within 10% of the proposed budget. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Matthews, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    First-Party Statutory Bad Faith – 60 Days to Cure Means 60 Days to Cure

    October 19, 2020 —
    In a first party bad-faith lawsuit, such as a bad faith claim against an insured’s property insurer, there are three requirements that must be met before the bad faith lawsuit is filed: “‘(1) determination of the insurer’s liability for coverage; (2) determination of the extent of the insured’s damages; and (3) the required notice must be filed under section 624.155(3)(a).’” Fortune v. First Protective Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2092a (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (citation omitted). The third requirement is for the insured to file a Civil Remedy Notice (known as a “CRN”) as a condition precedent to filing a statutory bad faith lawsuit giving the insurer 60 days’ notice of the bad faith violation and to cure the violation, i.e., pay the claim if the violation is payment. A very common bad faith payment violation is the assertion that the insurer did NOT attempt “in good faith to settle claims when, under the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly towards its insured and with due regard for his or her interests.” Fla. Stat. s. 624.155(1)(b)(1). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Hybrid Contracts for The Sale of Goods and Services and the Predominant Factor Test

    February 15, 2021 —
    Florida’s Uniform Commercial Code (also known as the UCC) applies to transactions for goods. “Goods” is defined by Article II of the UCC as “all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (chapter 678) and things in action.” Fla. Stat. s. 672.105(1). The UCC does NOT apply to transactions for services. Transactions for services are governed by common law. Oftentimes, transactions or contracts include BOTH goods and services. In this scenario, referred to as a hybrid contract, does the UCC or common law apply? In this scenario, courts apply the predominant factor test to determine whether the UCC or common law governs the transaction:
    Whether the UCC or the common law applies to a particular hybrid contract depends on “whether the[ ] predominant factor, the [ ] thrust, the[ ] purpose [of the contract], reasonably stated, is the rendition of service, with goods incidentally involved (e.g., contract with artist for painting) or is a transaction of sale, with labor incidentally involved (e.g., installation of a water heater in a bathroom).” In such instances, the determination whether the “predominant factor” in the contract is for goods or for services is a factual inquiry unless the court can determine that the contract is exclusively for goods or services as a matter of law. Allied Shelving & Equipment, Inc. v. National Deli, LLC, 154 So.3d 482, 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (citations omitted).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    "Ongoing Storm" Rules for the Northeast (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York & Rhode Island)

    February 22, 2021 —
    The winter storm that recently brought several feet of snow to the Northeast signaled that we are, indeed, in the middle of winter. Moreover, our nation’s favorite groundhog, Punxsutawney Phil, saw his shadow on Groundhog Day this year, indicating that winter will be with us for six more weeks. As we move through the remainder of this snowy season, it is important for businesses to understand their legal obligations concerning snow removal and the defenses that are available to them in the event that an injury occurs on their premises. This alert summarizes the ongoing storm rules in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, and analyzes property owners’ snow removal responsibilities as well as related premises liability issues under these states’ laws. Connecticut It is well settled in Connecticut that, in the absence of unusual circumstances, in fulfilling their duty to invitees on their property, property owners may wait a reasonable time after the conclusion of a storm to perform ice and snow removal from outside walkways and steps. Kraus v. Newton, 211 Conn. 191, 197-198 (1989). A property owner’s duty to perform reasonable snow and ice removal of outside walkways does not arise until after a reasonable period of time has passed after a storm ends. Umsteadt v. G.R. Realty, 123 Conn. App. 73, 83 (2010). The ongoing storm doctrine does not apply, however, if the defective condition arises from preexisting ice or snow, and not from the ongoing storm. Whether the alleged defective condition was caused by preexisting ice or snow and whether a storm has concluded are both questions of fact that may be decided by a jury. Kraus at 197-198. Reprinted courtesy of Angeline Ioannou, Lewis Brisbois, Kenneth Walton, Lewis Brisbois, Colin Hackett, Lewis Brisbois, Gregory Katz, Lewis Brisbois and Lauren Motola-Davis, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Ioannou may be contacted at Mr. Walton may be contacted at Mr. Hackett may be contacted at Mr. Katz may be contacted at Ms. Motola-Davis may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    CDC Issues Moratorium on Residential Evictions Through 2020

    October 05, 2020 —
    On September 1, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that it was issuing an order (CDC Order) to temporarily halt residential evictions to prevent the further spread of COVID-19. The CDC Order became effective on September 4, 2020 and will remain in effect through December 31, 2020. The purpose of the CDC Order is to keep tenants in their residences to reduce crowding in shelters or other shared housing and to reduce the number of unsheltered homeless, as those conditions have been shown to increase the spread of COVID-19. APPLICABILITY & PROTECTIONS The CDC Order is broader than the previous eviction moratorium under the Coronavirus Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), which applied only to federally-funded housing and expired on July 24, 2020. Eligible renters include those who qualified for a stimulus check under the CARES Act and individuals who expect to make less than $99,000 this year or a joint-filing couple that expects to make less than $198,000. Reprinted courtesy of Steven E. Ostrow, White and Williams LLP, C. Jason Kim, White and Williams LLP, and Marissa Levy, White and Williams LLP Mr. Ostrow may be contacted at Mr. Kim may be contacted at Ms. Levy may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Eleventh Circuit Vacates District Court Decision Finding No Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims

    November 02, 2020 —
    The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer finding there was no duty to defend. Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Mac Contractors of Florida, LLC, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 23918 (11th Cir. July 29, 2020). Mac Contractors entered into a contract with homeowners to serve as general contractor for the construction of a custom residence. Problems arose during construction and Mac eventually led the job site before completing the project. The home owners sued, alleging that Mac and its subcontractors had left the residence "replete with construction defects." Damages were sought for having to repair and remediate all defective work performed by Mac. Mac tendered under its CGL policy to its insurer, Southern-Owners. A defense was granted, but later withdrawn when Southern-Owners filed suit seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify Mac. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court found in favor of Southern-Owners based on the exclusion for "Damage to Your Work." The Eleventh Circuit vacated on appeal, concluding that the underlying complaint could fairly be construed to allege damages that fell outside of the exclusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at