• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield 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

    Detect and Prevent Construction Fraud

    That’s Common Knowledge! Failure to Designate an Expert Witness in a Professional Negligence Case is Not Fatal Where “Common Knowledge” Exception Applies

    A Look Back at the Ollies

    Tenants Who Negligently Cause Fires in Florida Beware: You May Be Liable to the Landlord’s Insurer

    Las Vegas Student Housing Developer Will Name Replacement Contractor

    Sick Leave, Paid Time Off, and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

    Loss Ensuing from Alleged Faulty Workmanship is Covered

    Thank You to Virginia Super Lawyers

    Structural Failure of Precast-Concrete Span Sets Back Sydney Metro Job

    Charges in Kansas Water Park Death

    COVID-19 Response: Essential Business Operations: a High-Stakes Question Under Proliferating “Stay at Home” Orders

    Proving Impacts to Critical Path to Defeat Liquidated Damages Assessment

    California Supreme Court McMillin Ruling

    Manhattan to Add Most Office Space Since ’90 Over 3 Years

    Helsinki Stream City: A Re-imagining Outside the System

    Proving Contractor Licensure in California. The Tribe Has Spoken

    Is There a Conflict of Interest When a CD Defense Attorney Becomes Coverage Counsel Post-Litigation?

    Lending Plunges to 17-Year Low as Rates Curtail Borrowing

    School District Client Advisory: Civility is not an Option, It is a Duty

    Caltrans to Speak before California Senate regarding Bay Bridge Expansion

    TARP Funds Demolish Homes in Detroit to Lift Prices: Mortgages

    2019 California Construction Law Update

    Georgia Court Clarifies Landlord Liability for Construction Defects

    Ahlers & Cressman Presents a Brief History of Liens

    Art Dao, Executive Director of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, Speaks at Wendel Rosen’s Infrastructure Forum

    CA Supreme Court Finds “Consent-to-Assignment” Clauses Unenforceable After Loss Occurs During the Policy Period

    What to do about California’s Defect-Ridden Board of Equalization Building

    Insured's Claim for Replacement Cost Denied

    Benefits and Pitfalls of Partnerships Between Companies

    Dreyer v. Am. Natl. Prop. & Cas. Co. Or: Do Not Enter into Nunn-Agreements for Injuries that Occurred After Expiration of the Subject Insurance Policy

    Law Firm Settles Two Construction Defect Suits for a Combined $4.7 Million

    How Do You Get to the Five Year Mark? Some Practical Advice

    San Diego County Considering Updates to Green Building Code

    Making Construction Innovation Stick

    Illinois Appellate Court Finds Insurer Estopped From Denying Coverage Where Declaratory Judgment Suit Filed Too Late

    #1 CDJ Topic: McMillin Albany LLC v Superior Court of California

    Mediation v. Arbitration, Both Private Dispute Resolution but Very Different Sorts

    Texas LGI Homes Goes After First-Time Homeowners

    Meritage Acquires Legendary Communities

    Parking Garage Collapse May Be Due to Construction Defect

    Court Rules in Favor of Treasure Island Developers in Environmental Case

    Defense Owed for Product Liability Claims That Do Not Amount to Faulty Workmanship

    Building in the Age of Technology: Improving Profitability and Jobsite Safety

    Home Prices Rose in Fewer U.S. Markets in Fourth Quarter

    Construction Law Firm Welin, O'Shaughnessy + Scheaf Merging with McDonald Hopkins LLC

    Reversing Itself, Alabama Supreme Court Finds Construction Defect is An Occurrence

    Virginia Chinese Drywall and pollution exclusion

    The Nightmare Scenario for Florida’s Coastal Homeowners

    Housing Sales Hurt as Fewer Immigrants Chase Owner Dream

    Dusseldorf Evacuates About 4,000 as World War II Bomb Defused
    Corporate Profile


    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

    Policyholders' Coverage Checklist in Times of Coronavirus

    March 16, 2020 —
    Every state but West Virginia have reported hundreds of Coronavirus (COVID-19) cases in the U.S. More than half are in California, Washington, New York, and Massachusetts. The unprecedented social and economic impact of the Coronavirus makes it necessary for policyholders to keep open all lines of communications with their insurance brokers, insurance carriers, financial advisors, safety & compliance experts, and insurance coverage counsel even if it is not certain whether they will need to file insurance claims. As always, the specific terms of the insurance policies and the way losses are documented and presented to insurance carriers will be pivotal in securing coverage for Coronavirus-related exposures, such as jobsite closures, stop-work orders, remote work mandated measures, business interruption, event cancelation, employees’ claims, among others. Policyholders should consider the following checklist of key insurance coverage tasks to be better positioned to face the risks posed by the Coronavirus:
    • Pre-Loss Risk Management: A careful review of the policyholder’s insurance program may show coverage for the Coronavirus outbreak. Now is the time to assess, with the guidance of your brokers and insurance coverage counsel, the specific coverages in place. Policyholders may want to particularly review the terms and conditions of their Property, General Liability, Pollution, Directors & Officers, Professional Liability, Fiduciary Liability, as well as Event Cancelation Insurance coverages, among others depending on their specific business trade. For instance, Policyholders would want to assess, ahead of time, whether there are bacterial/virus/communicable diseases/pandemics exclusions in their policies. It is also relevant to review, with a keen eye, the insuring agreements and pose hypotheticals to stress test them and see how far coverage would go with respect to a Coronavirus exposure;
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at Mr. Avila may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Supreme Court Rejects Insurers' Bid for Horizontal Exhaustion Rule in New Montrose Decision

    April 20, 2020 —
    In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court held that, when one primary policy exhausts in a continuing injury claim, the excess insurer sitting above that policy must drop down and provide coverage for the entire claim (up to its policy limits), even if primary policies in other years remain unexhausted. Montrose was sued for environmental contamination between 1947 and 1982. In many years, Montrose had primary insurance as well as multiple layers of excess coverage. Montrose’s excess insurers argued for a “horizontal exhaustion” rule, which would have required that all implicated primary policies exhaust before any excess insurers provide coverage. The California Supreme Court rejected the insurers’ arguments and found that Montrose was entitled to coverage from an excess insurer once the specific primary policy sitting below that insurer was exhausted. The Supreme Court also confirmed that, under California’s “all sums” rule, each excess insurer must provide coverage for the entire amount of the loss (up to its policy limits). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of J. Kelby Van Patten, Payne & Fears
    Mr. Van Patten may be contacted at

    The Need for Situational Awareness in Construction

    January 27, 2020 —
    Recent research backs up what we already know from practice: construction work is suboptimal. What happens on a construction site has not kept up with the demands of an increasingly complex work environment. Situational awareness could give on-site employees the necessary means to finally reap the productivity benefits of digitalization. Under the guidance of Professor Olli Seppänen, research teams at the Finnish Aalto University have delved into everyday conditions at a construction site. With the workers’ permission, they used video cameras, sensors, and surveys to locate the bottlenecks in productivity. The researchers also monitored the movement of products and materials on a construction site. The results are eye-opening. According to Aalto’s data, digitalization has not improved the productivity of construction foremen and workers. A typical worker still spends up to 70% of their time on activities that add no value: searching for information, unnecessary movement, and waiting. Construction materials are moved from place to place six times on the site before being consumed. In addition, especially on large construction sites, machinery often goes missing or is displaced. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at

    IRMI Expert Commentary: Managing Insurance Coverage from Multiple Insurers

    May 11, 2020 —
    What do you do when less is more? In many loss scenarios, triggering coverage under multiple policies can be a critical and effective strategy. However, doing so has the potential to complicate the insurance recovery proceedings immensely, and possibly even undermine those overall goals. The relation of "other insurance" clauses, allocation schemes, and the practical impacts of interacting with multiple insurers can all leave the insured with some difficult questions. We present here several scenarios that illustrate how these concerns can arise and how they should be addressed to avoid running into what The Notorious B.I.G.—had he been a coverage lawyer—would have called "The More Coverage We Come Across, the More Problems We See." The "Other Insurance" Issue This first scenario is where a single-year loss implicates multiple lines of coverage. Consider the following: a general contractor (GC) faces a property damage liability claim from an owner. As a prudent insured, the GC notifies its customary first line of defense, its commercial general liability (CGL) insurer, to provide a defense. As knowledge of the claim evolves, it appears an element of pollution may be involved. The GC also places its pollution insurer on notice. Later, it's determined that the GC may have a professional liability exposure, so it tenders a claim to its professional liability insurer. Now assume that each insurer accepts coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita attorneys Gregory D. Podolak, Philip B. Wilusz and Ashley McWilliams Mr. Podolak may be contacted at Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at Ms. McWilliams may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Nonparty Discovery in California Arbitration: How to Get What You Want

    March 02, 2020 —
    This article was originally published for the Association of Business Trial Lawyers (ATBL) Report, Volume XX, No. 3, Winter 2018 by attorney Leilani L. Jones. Opting for arbitration requires attorneys to balance efficiency and procedural protections. The implications of arbitration are something clients certainly have to carefully consider both when drafting arbitration provisions, and after initiating a demand. While arbitration can in many respects streamline the civil discovery process, one of the largest roadblocks for cases in California arbitrations is “streamlining” discovery from nonparties. This article explores the challenges presented by third party discovery in arbitration, and proposes strategies for obtaining such discovery efficiently and expeditiously. Alternative dispute resolution tends to make sense to most businesses implementing preventive measures for future litigation. Clients, lawyers, and judges can generally agree that arbitration is the more “cost-effective” way to resolve disputes, especially in California. While arbitration is theoretically a lowcost option for dispute resolution, almost all parties (particularly the party defending) bristle at climbing expenditures during discovery. This is all despite the perception of more “streamlined” processes in arbitrations. On balance, arbitrators, employing less formal procedures for discovery disputes, can typically cut to the chase faster than a civil judge. Parties often resolve issues via letter brief and telephonic hearing, if necessary, instead of formal noticed motions with accompanying separate statements. The Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc.’s (“JAMS”) own “Arbitration Discovery Protocols” specifically “ensure that an arbitration will be resolved much less expensively and in much less time than if it had been litigated in court.” Accessed at https:// Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Leilani E. Jones, Payne & Fears
    Ms. Jones may be contacted at

    Leveraging the 50-State Initiative, Connecticut and Maine Team Secure Full Dismissal of Coverage Claim for Catastrophic Property Loss

    March 23, 2020 —
    On behalf of Gordon & Rees’ surplus lines insurer client, Hartford insurance coverage attorneys Dennis Brown, Joseph Blyskal, and Regen O’Malley, with the assistance of associates Kelcie Reid, Alexandria McFarlane, and Justyn Stokely, and Maine counsel Lauren Thomas, secured a full dismissal of a $15 million commercial property loss claim before the Maine Business and Consumer Court on January 23, 2020. The insured, a wood pellet manufacturer, sustained catastrophic fire loss to its plant in 2018 – just one day after its surplus lines policy expired. Following the insurer’s declination of coverage for the loss, the wood pellet manufacturer brought suit against both its agent, claiming it had failed to timely secure property coverage, as well as the insurer, alleging that it had had failed to comply with Maine’s statutory notice requirements. The surplus lines insurer agreed to extend the prior policy several times by endorsement, but declined to do so again. Notably, the insured alleged that the agent received written notice of the non-renewal prior to the policy’s expiration 13 days before the policy’s expiration. However, the insured (as well as the agent by way of a cross-claim) asserted that the policy remained effective at the time of the loss as the insured did not receive direct notice of the decision not to renew coverage and notice to the agent was not timely. Although Maine’s Attorney General and Superintendent intervened in support of the insured’s and agent’s argument that the statute’s notice provision applied such that coverage would still be owed under the expired policy, Gordon & Rees convinced the Court otherwise. At issue, specifically, was whether the alleged violation of the 14-day notice provision in Section 2009-A of the Surplus Lines Law (24-A M.R.S. § 2009-A), which governs the “cancellation and nonrenewal” of surplus lines policies, required coverage notwithstanding the expiration of the policy. The insured, the agent, and the State of Maine intervenors argued that “cancellation or nonrenewal” was sufficient to trigger the statute’s notice requirement, and thus Section 2009-A required the insurer to notify the insured directly of nonrenewal. In its motion to dismiss, Gordon & Rees argued on behalf of its client that Section 2009-A requires both “cancellation and nonrenewal” in order for the statute to apply. Since there was no cancellation in this case – only nonrenewal – Gordon & Rees argued that Section 2009-A is inapt and that the insurer is not obligated to provide the manufacturer with notice of nonrenewal. Alternatively, it argued that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Regen O'Malley, Gordon & Rees
    Ms. O'Malley may be contacted at

    Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

    February 10, 2020 —
    Is an insured (or putative insured) entitled to recover its legal expenses if it is successful in coverage litigation? In some states, no. In many other states, yes – based on either a statute or the common law. In New York, an insured may recover such expenses if it was “cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations,” and, while forced into that posture, the insured defeats the insurer’s claim. Mighty Midgets, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 389 N.E.2d 1080, 1085 (N.Y. 1979). As a corollary to that rule, the insured is not entitled to its expenses “in an affirmative action brought by [the insured] to settle its rights. . . .” Id. at 1085. Earlier this week, the New York federal court in United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Lux Maint. & Ren. Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2019) became the latest to apply the Mighty Midgets rule, awarding several insureds their legal expenses after defeating the insurer’s declaratory judgment action. In Lux, the CGL insurer of a façade-renovation contractor sued the contractor (its named insured) and several owners of a hospital (putative additional insureds) at which the façade-renovation work took place, claiming that the insurer did not owe a defense or indemnity to any of those companies in connection with an underlying bodily injury action brought by an employee of the contractor who was injured while performing the work. The insurer and the putative additional insureds filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the coverage issues, with the putative additional insureds also seeking to recover their legal expenses for defending against the insurer’s action. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that, based on the contractor’s agreement to provide coverage for the hospital owners, and a comparison between the underlying allegations and the policy, the insurer owed the hospital owners coverage as additional insureds to the contractor’s policy; the court also concluded that the insurer owed coverage for the contractor’s contractual defense and indemnity obligations to the hospital owners. After concluding that the insurer’s claim that it did not owe coverage lacked merit, the court turned to the additional insureds’ request for their legal expenses. The court examined the “well settled” rule under New York law “that an insured cannot recover his legal expenditure in a dispute with an insurer over coverage, even if the insurer loses and is obligated to provide coverage,” but also New York’s “limited exception” to that rule, “under which an insured who is ‘cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations, and who prevails on the merits, may recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against the insurer’s action.’ ” Lux, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805, at *18 (quoting Mighty Midgets, 389 N.E.2d at 1085). Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at Mr. Carroll may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Dave McLain named Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants for 2019

    January 20, 2020 —
    The attorneys and staff at Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell are proud to announce that Law Week Colorado named Founding Member Dave McLain as the 2019 People’s Choice for Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants. According to the publication:
    Law Week Colorado asked its readership to weigh in on the best attorneys in just about every practice area we could think of. We received hundreds of responses and sifted through the votes for each category to determine the “People’s Choice” winner – the top attorney in each practice area according to other attorneys. And then we handed it to the “Barrister” (the hive mind of Law Week staff, supplemented by public votes and a healthy dose of additional research) to determine the Barrister’s Choice.
    In recognizing Mr. McLain this year, Law Week Colorado stated:
    Previously appearing in Law Week’s 2015 Barrister’s Best issue [in which he was recognized as the Barrister’s Choice as Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants], David McLain participates in numerous speaking engagements on construction defects claims and is seen as a leader in the field. His extensive experience over the last two decades of practice speaks for itself.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at