• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut consulting architect 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

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed To Prove Supplier’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Caused A SB800 Violation

    President Obama Vetoes Keystone Pipeline Bill

    Subcontractor Sued for Alleged Defective Work

    The CA Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review of McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.) As to Whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the Exclusive Remedy for All Defect Claims Arising Out of New Residential Construction

    Contractor Given a Wake-Up Call for Using a "Sham" RMO/RME

    Construction Delayed by Discovery of Bones

    KB Home Names New President of its D.C. Metro Division

    Examining Construction Defect as Occurrence in Recent Case Law and Litigation

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    Texas City Pulls Plug on Fossil Fuels With Shift to Solar

    One Insurer's Settlement with Insured Does Not Bar Contribution Claim by Other Insurers

    Constructive Changes – A Primer

    San Diego’s NFL Stadium Dream Counts on Munis for Chargers’ Home

    New Jersey’s Governor Puts Construction Firms on Formal Notice of His Focus on Misclassification of Workers as Independent Contractors

    Addenda to Construction Contracts Can Be an Issue

    The New Jersey Theme Park Where Kids’ Backhoe Dreams Come True

    Contractors Should Be Optimistic that the Best Value Tradeoff Process Will Be Employed by Civilian Agencies

    Wildfires Threaten to Make Home Insurance Unaffordable

    Arizona Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Provision Relating to Statutory Authority for Constructing and Operating Sports and Tourism Complexes

    New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements

    CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Related Remedies – 2014 Update

    Lien Actions Versus Lien Foreclosure Actions

    Liebherr Claims Crane Not Cause of Brazil Stadium Construction Accident

    Finding of No Coverage Overturned Due to Lack of Actual Policy

    Construction Defect Bill Removed from Committee Calendar

    Condominium Association Wins $5 Million Judgment against Developer

    Condo Owners Suing Bank for Failing to Disclose Defects

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    Nevada Governor Signs Construction Defect Reform Bill

    Quick Note: Not In Contract With The Owner? Serve A Notice To Owner.

    Sweet News for Yum Yum Donuts: Lost Goodwill is Not an All or Nothing Proposition

    A Bill for an Act Concerning Workers’ Compensation – 2014 Edition

    Texas covered versus uncovered allocation and “legally obligated to pay.”

    This Company Wants to Cut Emissions to Zero in the Dirty Cement Business

    California Court of Appeal Holds That the Right to Repair Act Prohibits Class Actions Against Manufacturers of Products Completely Manufactured Offsite

    Contract Change #8: Direct Communications between Owners and Contractors (law note)

    Appellate Court reverses district court’s finding of alter ego in Sedgwick Properties Development Corporation v. Christopher Hinds (2019WL2865935)

    10 Answers to Those Nagging Mechanics Lien Questions Keeping You Up at Night. Kind of

    Sureties do not Issue Bonds Risk-Free to the Bond-Principal

    Insurer Must Defend Insured Against Construction Defect Claims

    California Case That Reads Like Russian Novel Results in Less Than Satisfying Result for Both Project Owner and Contractors

    Arbitration is Waivable (Even If You Don’t Mean To)

    Is it time for a summer tune-up?

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Subcontractor Has No Duty to Defend Under Indemnity Provision

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers Lists

    Maryland Court Affirms Condo Association’s Right to Sue for Construction Defects

    Contractor May Be Barred Until Construction Lawsuit Settled

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded as Part of "Damages Because of Property Damage"

    Creative Avenue for Judgment Creditor to Collect a Judgment

    Residential Construction Rise Expected to Continue
    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

    Shoring of Ceiling Does Not Constitute Collapse Under Policy's Definition

    November 12, 2019 —
    Despite the need to shore up the ceiling, the building was not in a state of collapse under the language of the policy. Ravinia Vouge Cleaners v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123594 (N.D. Ill. July 24, 2019). Ravinia Cleaners held a property policy issued by Travelers for the building from which it operated its dry-cleaning business. On February 2, 2015, there was heavy snowfall. On February 4, Ravinia reported to Travelers a leak coming from the ceiling. A temporary "shoring " was placed on the ceiling. Ravinia reported to Travelers that there was damage to the roof on February 25, 2015. Travelers hired an engineer who observed a buckling truss and roof displacing downward. The inspector recommended that the building be vacated and not occupied until adequate shoring was in place. Travelers denied coverage because the building was in a state of imminent collapse which was caused by the weight of ice and snow, and defective construction of the truss system. The policy excluded damage relating to a "collapse of a building." Collapse was defined by the policy as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building," such that the building could not be occupied for its intended purpose. There were exceptions to the exclusion, however, if the cause of the collapse was: (1) weight of snow; or (2) use of defective materials or methods in construction if the collapse occurred after construction. The policy also excluded damage from a building being in a state of imminent collapse unless the damage was caused by: (1) weight of snow; or (2) use of defective materials or methods in construction if the collapse occurred during construction. 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

    “I Didn’t Sign That!” – Applicability of Waivers of Subrogation to Non-Signatory Third Parties

    September 30, 2019 —
    In Gables Construction v. Red Coats, 2019 Md. App. LEXIS 419, Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals considered whether a contractual waiver of subrogation in the prime contract for a construction project barred a third party – a fire watch vendor hired to guard the worksite – from pursuing a contribution claim against the general contractor. The court concluded that the general contractor could not rely on the waiver of subrogation clause to defeat the contribution claim of the vendor, who was not a party to the prime contract. As noted by the court, holding that a waiver of subrogation clause bars the contribution claims of an entity that was not a party to the contract would violate the intent of the Maryland Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA). When dealing with claims involving construction projects, there may exist multiple contracts between various parties that contain waivers of subrogation. The enforceability of such waivers can be limited by several factors, including the jurisdiction of the loss, the language of the waiver and the parties to the contract. In Gables Construction, Upper Rock, Inc. (Upper Rock), the owner, contracted with a general contractor, Gables Construction (GCI) (hereinafter referred to as the “prime contract”), to construct an apartment complex. After someone stole a bobcat tractor from the jobsite, Gables Residential Services Incorporated (GRSI), GCI’s parent company, signed a vendor services agreement (VSA) with Red Coats to provide a fire watch and other security services for the project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at

    Environmental Roundup – May 2019

    July 09, 2019 —
    Federal Courts of Appeal Dam Claims Collapse On May 7, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided the case of Navelski, et al. v. International Paper Company. After a major storm, a dam constructed by International Paper to serve the operations of its local paper mill, was breached, releasing millions of gallons of water into a nearby creek resulting in the flooding of many homes located downstream from the creek. IP was sued by the homeowners in a class action, alleging negligence and strict liability for conducting an abnormally dangerous activity. The trial court dismissed the strict liability claim, and the jury found IP was not negligent in the operation of the dam. On appeal, the court upheld the jury verdict, agreeing that the verdict was supported by the evidence heard by the jury. The appeals court also agreed that the strict liability claim was properly dismissed as a matter of law because the operation of this dam was not an abnormally dangerous activity under Florida law. The plaintiffs had also argued that the jury should not have been advised that the home county, Escambia County, has applied for a FEMA grant which apparently made the case that some of the downstream homes were naturally prone to flooding. A redacted version of the application was allowed to be shown to the jury, but the appeals court held that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the court ruling was prejudicial. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    Where There's Smoke...California's New Emergency Wildfire Smoke Protection Regulation And What Employers Are Required To Do

    August 26, 2019 —
    California employers need to pay heed to the recently announced California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Cal/OSHA) emergency regulation related to their duty to protect employees from the potential harm caused by wildfire smoke. As of July 29, 2019, employers are required to actively monitor their local Air Quality Index (AQI) and take steps to protect their employees from the harmful particulate matter contained within wildfire smoke. Which Workplaces Are Impacted? The regulation applies to all workplaces exposed to wildfire smoke with an AQI level of 151 or greater (ranging from "unhealthy" to "hazardous"). "Exposed" workplaces are those that are not in enclosed buildings, structures, or vehicles with mechanical ventilation and the ability to close all windows and doors. Outdoor occupations including construction, agriculture, landscaping, maintenance, commercial delivery, and others that expose the worker to the outside air for more than one hour will be the most impacted by this new regulation, although firefighters engaged in fighting wildfires are expressly exempt from the statute. What If I Have A Potentially Exposed Workplace? Employers with outdoor workplaces that are exposed to wildfire smoke are required to monitor the AQI before each shift, and "periodically throughout the day," all to ensure that the Air Quality Index for PM2.5 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or smaller) remains below 151. This can be done by visiting certain governmental websites, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's AirNow website (, which allow for regular email alerts to be issued to the employer. An employer with a potentially exposed workplace must also set up a communication system capable of communicating to all affected employees (in a language readily understood) the status of wildfire smoke hazards. The communication system must also provide the employees a process to inform the employer of worsening air quality and/or any adverse symptoms that they may be experiencing (e.g., asthma or chest pain). Finally, employers are required to add to their Injury and Illness Protection Program (IIPP) the provision of effective training and instruction (i.e., approximately 15 minutes) regarding:
    1. the health effects of wildfire smoke;
    2. the right to obtain medical treatment without fear of reprisal;
    3. how employees can obtain the current AQI for PM2.5;
    4. the requirements of this regulation;
    5. the employer's communication system regarding wildfire smoke;
    6. the employer's methods for protecting employees from wildfire smoke;
    7. the importance, limitations, and benefits of using a respirator when exposed to wildfire smoke; and
    8. the proper use and maintenance of respirators.
    The Required Provision of Respiratory Protective Equipment Employers with exposed workplaces are required to provide effective NIOSH-approved respirators (e.g., N95 filtering facepiece respirators) when AQI for PM2.5 levels are 151-200 (unhealthy), 201-300 (very unhealthy), or 301-500 (hazardous). The N95 respirator typically costs less than a dollar per mask and can be easily purchased online. Employers are also required to clean, store, and maintain these respirators for times of need. Employees are free to decide whether to use a respirator when the AQI for PM2.5 level is between 151-500, although employers must be prepared to offer the equipment at an AQI level of 151 or higher. Use of the respirator by an employee exposed to an AQI for PM2.5 level that exceeds 500, however, is required by law. What Should Potentially Exposed Employers Do Now? Employers should immediately begin supplementing their IIPP platforms to include this regulation's prescribed training regarding wildfire smoke. Companies should also develop an adequate monitoring and communication plan regarding wildfire smoke hazards and effectively train their supervisors on the same. Finally, acquiring an adequate supply of N95 filtering respirators now will help ensure that employers are prepared for the next wildfire. Michael Studenka is a partner in Newmeyer Dillion's Labor & Employment practice group. His practice focuses on the life cycle of Employment law. Mike advises and trains companies on proactive measures to keep them protected and in compliance, and leverages his significant trial experience when faced with litigation. You can reach out to him at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    September 09, 2019 —
    Hunton Andrews Kurth’s insurance coverage practice is proud to congratulate Cary D. Steklof for being selected by his peers to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite Up & Comers list for 2019. A total of 131 attorneys under the age of 40 throughout the state of Florida were recognized for their leadership in the law and their communities. Cary was one of only seven attorneys selected for their skill and counsel in the area of insurance. We congratulate Cary and all of the recipients of this award who have distinguished themselves for their superior advocacy, knowledge, and accomplishments as young professionals. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
    Mr. Levine may be contacted at

    Housing Starts Surge 23% in Comeback for Canadian Builders

    July 15, 2019 —
    Canadian housing starts unexpectedly surged in April, in another sign of recovery for the nation’s battered real estate market. Builders started work on an annualized 235,460 units last month, the highest level in 10 months and up 23 percent from 191,981 units in March, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. reported Wednesday. The gain was driven by new multi-unit construction in Toronto and Vancouver. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Theophilos Argitis, Bloomberg

    ENR Northwest’s Top Contractors Survey Reveals Regional Uptick

    June 25, 2019 —
    A year ago, the 25 contractors responding to ENR Northwest’s Top Contractors survey collectively reported roughly $6.4 billion in 2017 revenue from the states of Washington, Oregon and Alaska. This year, the 27 contractors listed below—in alphabetical order—reported more than $8.8 billion in regional revenue for 2018. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Judy, ENR
    Mr. Judy may be contacted at

    Colorado Trench Collapse Kills Two

    July 30, 2019 —
    Federal safety officials are investigating the April 16 collapse of a trench that killed two construction workers in northern Colorado. The two men—Cristopher Lee Ramirez, 26, and Jorge Baez Valadez, 41—were installing utilities at a site being developed by D.R. Horton Express Homes in Windsor, Colo., when they were trapped by soil and rocks in the 15-ft-deep trench. The rescue attempt lasted seven hours and involved small shovels because of fears of a second collapse. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at