BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofing
    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


    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Dining

    A Property Boom Is Coming to China's Smaller Cities

    OSHA Extends Temporary Fall Protection Rules

    Texas Supreme Court to Rehear Menchaca Bad Faith Case

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    The Murky Waters Between "Good Faith" and "Bad Faith"

    Newmeyer Dillion Secures Victory For Crown Castle In Years-Long Litigation With City Council Of Piedmont Over Small Cell Wireless Telecommunications Sites

    NY Appellate Court Holds Common Interest Privilege Applies to Parties to a Merger

    Designers Face Fatal Pedestrian Bridge Collapse Fallout

    Buffett Says ‘No-Brainer’ to Get a Mortgage to Short Rates

    Matthew Graham Named to Best Lawyers in America

    2019’s Biggest Labor and Employment Moves Affecting Construction

    Happenings in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Lumber Liquidators’ Home-Testing Methods Get EPA Scrutiny

    Buffett’s $11 Million Beach House Is Still on the Market

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces Three New Partners

    California’s One-Action Rule May Apply to Federal Lenders

    Committeewoman Requests Refund on Attorney Fees after Failed Legal Efforts

    An Increase of US Metro Areas’ with Normal Housing & Economic Health

    Being deposed—not just for dictators! Depositions in the construction lawsuit (Law & Order: Hard Hat files Part 5)

    Constructing a New American Dream

    Equitable Subrogation Part Deux: Mechanic’s Lien vs. Later Bank Deed of Trust

    Buyer Alleges Condo Full of Mold and Mice

    Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege

    Crumbling Roadways Add Costs to Economy, White House Says

    HUD Homeownership Push to Heed Lessons From Crisis, Castro Says

    BWBO Celebrating Attorney Award and Two New Partners

    Drought Dogs Developers in California's Soaring Housing Market

    Claims for Breach of Express Indemnity Clauses Subject to 10-Year Statute of Limitations

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    Vacant Property and the Right of Redemption in Pennsylvania

    New Jersey Court Washes Away Insurer’s Waiver of Subrogation Arguments

    New Plan Submitted for Explosive Demolition of Old Tappan Zee Bridge

    Affordable Harlem Housing Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    Colorado Senate Voted to Kill One of Three Construction Defect Bills

    Firm Announces Remediation of Defective Drywall

    Boston Water Main Break Floods Trench and Kills Two Workers

    Haight’s Sacramento Office Has Moved

    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

    Los Angeles Could Be Devastated by the Next Big Earthquake

    Mortgage Whistleblower Stands Alone as U.S. Won’t Join Lawsuit

    Another Guilty Plea in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

    Kumagai Drops Most in 4 Months on Building Defect: Tokyo Mover

    Mandatory Energy Benchmarking is On Its Way

    Four Dead After Crane Collapses at Google’s Seattle Campus

    U.S. Homeownership Rate Rises for First Time in Two Years

    Construction Defect Suit Can Continue Against Plumber

    Louisiana 13th in List of Defective Bridges

    SunTrust Will Pay $968 Million to Resolve Mortgage Probes

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    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

    California Supreme Court Holds that Requirement of Prejudice for Late Notice Defense is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State for Choice of Law Analysis

    November 04, 2019 —
    California’s highest court held yesterday in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., that the state’s insurance notice-prejudice rule is a “fundamental public policy” for the purpose of choice of law analyses. This unanimous ruling, issued in response to certified questions from the Ninth Circuit, confirms and emphasizes California’s common law rule that policyholders who provide “late notice” may proceed with their insurance claim, absent a showing by the insurer of substantial prejudice. The California Supreme Court also extended the prejudice requirement, holding that a first-party insurer must show that it was prejudiced before denying coverage under a policy’s “consent provision,” which typically provides that the policyholder must obtain the insurer’s “consent” before incurring costs and expenses. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys Lorelie S. Masters, Michael S. Levine and Michelle M. Spatz Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Deck Police - The New Mandate for HOA's Takes Safety to the Next Level

    November 18, 2019 —
    A recent California law will hold homeowners’ associations accountable for the safety of their decks. SB326 now mandates all homeowners' associations to have decks inspected at least once every nine years by an architect or structural engineer to determine whether the decks are safe and waterproof. This law (Civil Code section 5551) follows SB721 which was passed in 2018 and requires a similar inspection every six years for other multifamily dwelling units. Failure to comply can result in paying the enforcement costs of local building agencies. DETAILS ON THE MANDATE: More specifically, the 2019 law requires inspections of wood “decks, balconies, stairways, and their railings” more than six feet off of the ground and designed for human use. Additionally, the engineer or architect must (1) certify that he or she has inspected for safety and waterproofing, and (2) certify the remaining useful life of the system. Further, the inspector must inspect a random sample of enough units to provide 95% confidence that “the results are reflective of the whole.” In other words, in addition to the inspector, the association will have to hire a statistician. The nine-year timetable for inspection is no coincidence. After all, the statute of limitations for construction defects is ten years. In fact, associations are required to give notice to their members before filing a suit against a builder. However, under the new law, the association can delay giving notice to its members “if the association has reason to believe that the statute of limitations will expire.” Also, recent case law held that builders could add requirements to CC&R’s to limit a board’s authority to file lawsuits – i.e. adding a supermajority vote by members. Under SB326, any such provisions are now void. Hence, “supermajority” voting provisions are now invalid. IMPACT ON CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION These recent laws are clearly a reaction to the tragic collapse of an apartment balcony in Berkley in 2015 that resulted in the death of six college students. While it is imperative that decks be structurally safe, the requirements of SB326 will fuel more construction defect litigation. Joseph Ferrentino is a Partner in Newmeyer Dillion's Newport Beach office. With 25 years of experience, Joe guides clients through construction law issues, among other areas. For more information on how Joe can help, contact him at joe.ferrentino@ndlf.com ABOUT NEWMEYER DILLION For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that align with the business objectives of clients in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as an integrated team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers tailored legal services to propel clients’ business growth. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sustainability Puts Down Roots in Real Estate

    January 27, 2020 —
    Sustainability has evolved from a passing trend or niche preference into an undeniable, growing driver of the real estate market. This is particularly true as millennials comprise an increasing proportion of the workforce, home-buying population, and individuals influencing the future of real estate development in the United States. If anything illustrates the significance of younger generations’ increasing interest in sustainability, it is the Global Climate Strike that drew participation of many thousands of young people, with 2,500 events scheduled in over 150 countries. In New York City, 1.1 million public school students were excused from school to join the strike in an event planned to precede the UN Summit, which itself was intended to push countries toward a commitment to faster transition to renewable energy and stricter climate targets. While both policymakers and citizens of previous generations have been split on their willingness to address global climate change with urgency, younger generations are feeling a stronger sense of responsibility for curbing the world’s trajectory towards a climate catastrophe, which will be inherited by them and their children. This has manifested in action that promotes awareness of and political action with respect to these issues—such as the Global Climate Strike—as well as evolving habits and preferences in both consumer goods and real estate. Greener Space In recent years, real estate developers have recognized that there is a market for “greener” developments that reduce annual expenditures on buildings, whether it be through small spaces requiring less electricity and promoting energy efficiency, or through renewable energy options such as solar photovoltaic power. Some real estate developers have chosen to install these options themselves, while others seek out sustainable financing options to cover the costs of renewable energy. If installing renewable energy is too costly, real estate developers will seek out more cost-effective locations for their brick-and-mortar operations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stephanie Amaru, Pillsbury
    Ms. Amaru may be contacted at stephanie.amaru@pillsburylaw.com

    Jury Finds Broker Liable for Policyholder’s Insufficient Business Interruption Limits

    January 06, 2020 —
    After a four-day trial, an Arizona federal jury found that Western Truck Insurance Services, Inc., an insurance broker, was negligent in selling Madison Alley Transportation and Logistics Inc. a business interruption policy with inadequate annual limits. Based on its finding of negligence, the jury determined that the broker was liable for $685,000 of $1,000,000 in damages suffered by Madison Alley as a result of a flood in its warehouse. The verdict and Complaint, filed in Arizona state court before the case was removed, can be found here and here. In June 2016, a subtenant in Madison Alley’s warehouse broke a sprinkler line while operating a forklift, causing the warehouse to flood. The warehouse was used to store and deliver retail display goods, and Madison Alley was unable to do business during the five months of repairs. Madison Alley sought coverage under a business interruption policy it had purchased through Western Truck, but the policy’s $20,000 limit was not enough to cover its approximately $1,480,000 in losses. Madison Alley sought coverage under a business interruption policy it had purchased through Western Truck, but the policy’s $20,000 limit was not enough to cover its approximately $1,480,000 in losses. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Three-Year Delay Not “Prompt Notice,” But Insurer Not “Appreciably Prejudiced” Either, New Jersey Court Holds

    November 04, 2019 —
    In Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company v. East Coast Painting & Maintenance, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135295 (D.N.J. Aug. 12, 2019) (East Coast Painting), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that an insurer, which received notice of a bodily injury accident three years after it happened, was not “appreciably prejudiced” by such late notice, even as the court acknowledged notice three years later did not satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The court also held that the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” which excluded coverage for bodily injury arising out of the operation of “cherry pickers and similar devices,” did not apply because the accident arose out of the use of a “scissor lift,” which is not a device similar to a cherry picker. East Coast Painting arose out of a Queens, New York bridge-painting project, during which an employee of the insured, East Coast Painting and Maintenance LLC was injured while “standing on a scissor lift mounted to the back of a truck,” owned and operated by East Coast. The employee sued various project-related entities which, in turn, joined East Coast as a defendant. East Coast sought coverage under its business auto policy, and the insurer agreed to defend the insured under a reservation of rights. The insurer subsequently sought a declaration that it did not owe coverage based on, among other things, the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” and the insured’s failure to satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The insurer moved for summary judgment on both of those bases, but the court in East Coast Painting denied the motion. As for the insurer’s “prompt notice” defense, the court in East Coast Painting concluded that, the insured’s notice to the insurer was not prompt because it did not receive notice until three years after the accident. But, the court added, the inquiry does not end there. “[T]his Court must determine whether [the insurer] was appreciably prejudiced by that delay.” Reviewing the facts, the court held that the insurer was not “appreciably prejudiced,” even though during the three-year delay the lift truck was “not properly maintained” or “in the same condition it was at the time of the Accident.” The court observed that the insurer had “ample other evidence with which it can defend itself,” such as experts who inspected the lift truck and opined about the cause of the accident.” [Emphasis added.] Further, “there are multiple contemporaneous accident reports,” “a list of the East Coast employees on site at the time,” “photographs of the lift truck and its location when [the employee] was injured,” and “depositions of [the employee] and others regarding the events at issue.” Thus, the court held, the insurer was not prejudiced and summary judgment was inappropriate. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Preparing Your Business For Internal Transition

    October 14, 2019 —
    When is it right to start thinking about succession planning and preparing a construction company for transition? Many would agree – in concept, at least – that serious thought regarding succession and transition planning should begin at a company’s inception and be revisited throughout its lifecycle, but as a practical matter, it is frequently not part of the mindset when growing a business. This article explores issues that construction company owners should consider in order to achieve smooth transition of ownership and control. We will address three critical questions:
    • What happens to the business when an owner retires;
    • In the event an owner(s) become disabled; and,
    • Unplanned exit/owner pre-deceases her/his exit from the company
    Owners who do not plan carefully for transition are often faced with the less than appealing option of liquidating their business for much less than its value, or by closing the business with no return upon that event. However, those who plan carefully can realize the value of their life’s work, pass the business to the next generation and see their legacy continue. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stephen P. Katz, Esq., Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Katz may be contacted at skatz@pecklaw.com

    Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Coverage Action Arising out of a Claim for Personal Injury

    December 22, 2019 —
    On August 16, 2019, Traub Lieberman partner obtained summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action involving a claim for coverage for a personal injury action involving injuries suffered on a construction site. The plaintiff in the underlying action was performing excavation in a basement of a building in Manhattan so the owner could install a pool. During the course of the excavation plaintiff fell 13 feet from a plank, into the excavated pit, suffering serious injuries. Traub Lieberman’s client issued a CGL policy to the building owner and the insured sought coverage for the suit under that policy. The insurer denied coverage based on an endorsement to the policy that stated the insured could only contract directly with a specified general contractor. The plaintiff was an employee of a subcontractor and the insurer believed the insured had contracted directly with that unapproved subcontractor. The insured denied it had done, contending the subcontractor had been hired by the general contractor identified in the endorsement. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan R. Harwood, Traub Lieberman Mr. Harwood may be contacted at jharwood@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Amazon Feels the Heat From Hoverboard Fire Claims

    January 20, 2020 —
    In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 3:18CV166-M-P, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189053 (Oct. 31, 2019), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi considered a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon). Amazon argued that, because it was a “service provider” who cannot be held liable under Mississippi’s Product Liability Act (MPLA), Miss. Code § 11.1.63, the negligence and negligent failure to warn claims filed against it by plaintiff State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (State Farm) failed as a matter of law. The court, looking beyond the MPLA, held that State Farm’s complaint stated a claim against Amazon. In State Farm, Taylor and Laurel Boone (the Boones), State Farm’s subrogors, purchased two hoverboards from third parties in transactions facilitated by Amazon. They purchased the first hoverboard on October 31, 2015 and the second on November 10, 2015. The Boones started using the hoverboards on or about December 25, 2015. On March 16, 2016, the hoverboards caught fire and the fire spread to destroy the Boones’ home. As alleged in the amended complaint, the hoverboards were “manufactured by unknown manufacturers from China.” State Farm, as the Boones’ subrogee, filed suit asserting negligence and negligent failure to warn claims against Amazon. Amazon filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that State Farm’s claims against it were governed by the MPLA and, as a service provider, it was not liable under the MPLA. In response, State Farm argued that Amazon was liable because it acted as a “marketplace” and that, rather than MPLA claims, Amazon is subject to common law negligence and failure to warn claims. The District Court agreed with State Farm. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com