• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer Builders Information
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Connecticut Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent

    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Fairfield Connecticut

    License required for electrical and plumbing trades. No state license for general contracting, however, must register with the State.

    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders & Remo Assn of Fairfield Co
    Local # 0780
    433 Meadow St
    Fairfield, CT 06824

    Fairfield Connecticut Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Eastern Connecticut
    Local # 0740
    20 Hartford Rd Suite 18
    Salem, CT 06420

    Fairfield Connecticut Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of New Haven Co
    Local # 0720
    2189 Silas Deane Highway
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Hartford Cty Inc
    Local # 0755
    2189 Silas Deane Hwy
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of NW Connecticut
    Local # 0710
    110 Brook St
    Torrington, CT 06790

    Fairfield Connecticut Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Connecticut (State)
    Local # 0700
    3 Regency Dr Ste 204
    Bloomfield, CT 06002

    Fairfield Connecticut Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Fairfield Connecticut

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose in June at a Slower Pace

    Idaho Construction Executive Found Guilty of Fraud and Tax Evasion

    Duty to Defend For Accident Exists, But Not Duty to Indeminfy

    California Supreme Court Raises the Bar on Dangerous Conditions on Public Property Claims

    DC Circuit Approves, with Some Misgivings, FERC’s Approval of the Atlantic Sunrise Natural Gas Pipeline Extension

    General Contractor/Developer May Not Rely on the Homeowner Protection Act to Avoid a Waiver of Consequential Damages in an AIA Contract

    Primer Debuts on Life-Cycle Assessments of Embodied Carbon in Buildings

    How Berlin’s Futuristic Airport Became a $6 Billion Embarrassment

    Ninth Circuit Construes Known Loss Provision

    Duty to Defend Bodily Injury Evolving Over Many Policy Periods Prorated in Louisiana

    Indemnity Provision Provides Relief to Contractor; Additional Insured Provision Does Not

    Taylor Morrison Home Corp’ New San Jose Development

    Spa High-Rise Residents Frustrated by Construction Defects

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

    Tidal Lagoon Plans Marine Project to Power Every Home in Wales

    As Evidence Grows, Regions Prepare for Sea Level Rise

    No Coverage for Foundation Collapse

    Delaware Strengthens Jurisdictional Defenses for Foreign Corporations Registered to Do Business in Delaware

    Putting for a Cure: Don’t Forget to Visit BHA’s Booth at WCC to Support Charity

    PPP Loan Extension Ending Aug. 8

    Greg Dillion & Newmeyer Dillion Named 2019 Good Scout Award Recipient

    Quick Note: Expert Testimony – Back to the Frye Test in Florida

    Lower Manhattan Condos Rival Midtown’s Luxury Skyscrapers

    Washington Court Tunnels Deeper Into the Discovery Rule

    Earth Movement Exclusion Precludes Coverage

    New York's De Blasio Unveils $41 Billion Plan for Affordable Housing

    2019 Promotions - New Partners at Haight

    California Supreme Court Allows Claim Under Unfair Competition Statute To Proceed

    Policy's Operation Classification Found Ambiguous

    Punchlist: The News We Didn’t Quite Get To – May 2016

    Construction Companies Can Be Liable for “Secondary Exposure” of Asbestos to Household Members

    San Francisco Bucks U.S. Trend With Homeownership Gains

    Bill Introduced to give Colorado Shortest Statute of Repose in U.S.

    School District Gets Expensive Lesson on Prompt Payment Law. But Did the Court Get it Right?

    Can an Owner Preemptively Avoid a Mechanics Lien?

    CSLB Joint Venture Licenses – Providing Contractors With The Means To Expand Their Businesses

    Jury Awards Aluminum Company 35 Million in Time Element Losses

    California Bullet Train Clears Federal Environmental Approval

    Is It Time to Revisit Construction Defects in Kentucky?

    Alabama Court Upholds Late Notice Disclaimer

    Mass. Gas Leak Follows NTSB Final Report, Call for Reforms

    How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?

    SunEdison Gets Shinsei Bank Funding for Japan Solar Power Plant

    Happenings in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Daiwa House to Invest 150 Billion Yen in U.S. Rental Housing

    ENR Northwest’s Top Contractors Survey Reveals Regional Uptick

    How to Prepare for Potential Construction Disputes Resulting From COVID-19

    California Case Adds Difficulties for Contractors & Material Suppliers

    The Peak of Hurricane Season Is Here: How to Manage Risks Before They Manage You

    Survey: Workers Lack Awareness of Potentially Hazardous Nanomaterials
    Corporate Profile


    The Fairfield, Connecticut Expert Witness Engineer 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.

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Request for Stay Denied in Dispute Over Coverage for Volcano Damage

    August 10, 2020 —
    Although there were concurrent state and federal proceedings regarding the insureds' claims for damage caused by Kilauea Volcano, the federal district court refused to dismiss or stay the federal action. Aqulina v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's Syndicate #2003, 2020 U.S. District Ct. LEXIS 101832 (D. Haw. June 10, 2020). Plaintiffs held homeowner's policies from Lloyd's that were brokered and underwritten by various defendants. Coverage from the May 2018 eruption of Kilauea Volcano was denied based upon an exclusion precluding coverage for lava-related damage. Plaintiffs sued Lloyds and various brokers in federal court, alleging that defendants had engaged in a deceptive scheme to defraud plaintiffs and deprive them of meaningful coverage. Lawsuits were also filed in state court, with plaintiffs arguing their losses were covered by their policies and that defendants wrongfully relied solely on the lava exclusion to deny claims. 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

    Protecting Your Business From Liability Claims Stemming From COVID-19 Exposure

    June 01, 2020 —
    Businesses of every nature – including grocery stores, banks, daycares, gyms and restaurants – may face increasing liability claims from customers and third parties claiming to have been exposed to the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19, while at their location. The novel virus raises issues as to whether businesses have a heightened duty of care to their customers, and what type of exposure businesses face if a customer claims to have been exposed to COVID-19 while at their premises. Recently, a lawsuit was filed against Princess Cruise lines for gross negligence in allowing passengers to be exposed to COVID-19 on a cruise ship. The lawsuit alleges that the cruise ship was allowed to go out to sea knowing that it was infected from two previous passengers who came down with symptoms of COVID-19. It further claims that the passengers were not warned of the potential exposure either before or after they boarded the ship. In other news reports around the country, business owners have reported taking extraordinary precautions to prevent customers’ risk of contracting COVID-19. For example, one grocery store recently reported that it discarded $35,000 worth of food after a customer coughed on fresh produce. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Andrew Hamelsky, Jenifer Scarcella and Joshua Tumen Mr. Hamelsky may be contacted at Ms. Scarcella may be contacted at Mr. Tumen may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Does a Landlord’s Violation of the Arizona Residential Landlord-Tenant Act Constitute Negligence Per Se?

    September 21, 2020 —
    In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Ibarra v. Gastelum, 2020 WL 4218020 (7/23/20), the Court of Appeals addressed the question whether – in a tenant’s personal injury claim against the landlord – a landlord’s violation of the Arizona Landlord-Tenant Act constituted negligence per se. The tenant alleged he was injured by stubbing his toe on a crack in the floor. The tenant alleged that he had made repeated demands that the landlord repair the crack. The statute required the landlord to make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition. The tenant argued that a violation of the statute constituted negligence per se, meaning that the violation of the statute satisfied (as a matter of law) the first two elements of a negligence claim – duty and breach of duty. The tenant requested a negligence per se jury instruction. The trial court declined that request and refused to give the requested instruction. The tenant lost the jury trial and appealed. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Parker may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hunton Insurance Partner Among Top 250 Women in Litigation

    October 05, 2020 —
    Benchmark Litigation recently identified the Top 250 Women in Litigation. The list is based on an extensive research process, feedback from clients, and one-on-one interviews. Benchmark has identified the litigators who have participated “in some of the most impactful litigation matters in recent history” and have earned “hard-won respect of their peers and clients.” Lorelie S. Masters was included in the list for the seventh time. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Staying the Course, Texas Supreme Court Rejects Insurer’s Argument for Exception to Eight-Corners Rule in Determining Duty to Defend

    April 27, 2020 —
    In responding to a certified question from the Fifth Circuit in Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, the Texas Supreme Court held that the “policy-language exception” to the eight-corners rule articulated by the federal district court is not a permissible exception under Texas law. See Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, 19-0802, 2020 WL 1313782, at *1 (Tex. Mar. 20, 2020). The eight-corners rule generally provides that Texas courts may only consider the four corners of the petition and the four corners of the applicable insurance policy when determining whether a duty to defend exists. State Farm argued that a “policy-language exception” prevents application of the eight-corners rule unless the insurance policy explicitly requires the insurer to defend “all actions against its insured no matter if the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent,” relying on B. Hall Contracting Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 447 F. Supp. 2d 634, 645 (N.D. Tex. 2006). The Texas Supreme Court rejected the insurer’s argument, citing Texas’ long history of applying the eight-corners rule without regard for the presence or absence of a “groundless-claims” clause. The underlying dispute in Richards concerned whether State Farm must defend its insureds, Janet and Melvin Richards, against claims of negligent failure to supervise and instruct after their 10-year old grandson died in an ATV accident. The Richardses asked State Farm to provide a defense to the lawsuit by their grandson’s mother and, if necessary, to indemnify them against any damages. To support its argument that no coverage under the policy existed, and in turn, it had no duty to defend, State Farm relied on: (1) a police report to prove the location of the accident occurred off the insured property; and (2) a court order detailing the custody arrangement of the deceased child to prove the child was an insured under the policy. The federal district court held that the eight-corners rule did not apply, and thus extrinsic evidence could be considered regarding the duty to defend, because the policy did not contain a statement that the insurer would defend “groundless, false, or fraudulent” claims. In light of the extrinsic police report and extrinsic custody order, the district court granted summary judgment to State Farm. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys John C. Eichman, Sergio F. Oehninger, Grayson L. Linyard and Leah B. Nommensen Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at Mr. Linyard may be contacted at Ms. Nommensen may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    COVID-19 Damages and Time Recovery: Contract Checklist and Analysis

    April 27, 2020 —
    This Alert explores the contract provisions and related rights that are likely to govern time and compensation adjustments for COVID-19 impacts. As parties begin analyzing such rights, this is intended to serve as a useful guide and checklist. Analysis of relevant contract provisions should start with careful consideration of the specific impacts that have been experienced and the causes of those impacts. The nature of the impact (delay, extra work, disruption, etc.) and the causes of such impacts (owner direction, government order, etc.) will generally govern the analysis and resulting course of action. Listing or creating a matrix of impacts and their causes may be an effective working tool. Essentially, there are five primary impacts that will likely require critical analysis under the relevant contract provisions, and notably, more than one impact may be present: a) complete or partial suspension of work, b) additional work or requirements, c) added cost, d) delay, and e) disruption. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick J. Greene, Jr., Peckar & Abramson
    Mr. Greene may be contacted at

    Tall and Sustainable Is Not an Easy Fix

    June 01, 2020 —
    Way back in 2009, I discussed the interaction between taller and taller buildings and sustainable (“green”) building. Back then, the reference was to the construction of skyscrapers in the Middle East and Europe. The initially referenced ENR article was written in the context of an urban retrofit of some of Chicago’s taller buildings to make them more sustainable. Just this week, ENR published another article relating to sustainability and super tall buildings. The gist of the article is that while many see taller (rather than wider) as the trend to meld an urban population explosion with more sustainable building practices, this goal is not an easy one to meet. For one, according to the article, energy performance metrics are hard to obtain, both due to the relative newness of these buildings and the seeming reluctance of certain owners to provide the data. Bob Pratt, a managing director in the Shanghai office of developer Tishman Speyer Properties, is quoted in the article, stating
    Once we have measuring sticks about performance, we will know what to do” to make buildings sustainable.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Act of 2020: Yet Another Reason to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses

    May 25, 2020 —
    Business interruption coverage stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic is a matter of intense debate. The number of policyholder lawsuits continues to rise sharply and an increasing number of state legislatures are considering laws to specifically address such coverage. Now, additional proposed legislation at the federal level could completely and definitively resolve the debate in favor of coverage for policyholders. The Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Act of 2020 On April 14, Congress introduced the Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Act of 2020 (the “Act”) which, if passed, would require insurance companies to cover business interruption losses due to “viral pandemics, forced closures of businesses, mandatory evacuations, and public safety power shut-offs.” The bill further states:
    Any exclusion in a contract for business interruption insurance that is in force on the date of the enactment of this Act shall be void to the extent that it excludes losses specified . . . .
    The draft legislation also specifies that it preempts state approval of any contrary exclusion and renders such approval “void to the extent that it excludes losses specified.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion
    Mr. Hultz may be contacted at