• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expert
    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

    Todd Seelman Recognized as Fellow of Wisconsin Law Foundation

    ARUP, Rethinking Green Infrastructure

    OSHA Launches Program to Combat Trenching Accidents

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Validity of Statutory Employer Defense

    Are Millennials Finally Moving Out On Their Own?

    SunEdison Gets Shinsei Bank Funding for Japan Solar Power Plant

    “Professional Best Efforts” part 2– Reservation of Rights for Engineers who agree to “best” efforts? (law note)

    The Construction Lawyer as Counselor

    Construction Spending Had Strongest Increase in Four Years

    What is the True Value of Rooftop Solar Panels?

    Another Smart Home Innovation: Remote HVAC Diagnostics

    California insured’s duty to cooperate and insurer’s right to select defense counsel

    Newmeyer & Dillion Partner Aaron Lovaas & Casey Quinn Recognized by Super Lawyers

    After Elections, Infrastructure Talk Stirs Again

    Few Homes Available to Reno Buyers, Plenty of Commercial Properties

    Legislative Update on Bills of Note (Updated Post-Adjournment)

    Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Act Violations

    Finding of No Coverage Overturned Due to Lack of Actual Policy

    Going Digital in 2019: The Latest Technology for a Bright Future in Construction

    Insured's Expert Qualified, Judgment for Coverage Affirmed

    House Panel Subpoenas VA Documents on Colorado Project

    Battle of Experts Cannot Be Decided on Summary Judgment

    Ill-fated Complaint Fails to State Claims Against Broker and FEMA

    CA Supreme Court Permits Insurers to Bring Direct Actions Seeking Reimbursement of Excessive Fees Against Cumis Counsel Under Limited Circumstances

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

    Penn Station’s Revival Gets a $1.6 Billion Down Payment

    FEMA Offers to Review Hurricane Sandy Claims

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    Zillow Seen Dominating U.S. Home Searches with Trulia

    Evacuations in Santa Barbara County as more Mudslides are Predicted

    Another Way a Mechanic’s Lien Protects You

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California FAIR Plan Limited to Coverage Provided by Statutory Fire Insurance Policy

    Crime Policy Insurance Quotes Falsely Represented the Scope of its Coverage

    Update Relating to SB891 and Bond Claim Waivers

    Newmeyer & Dillion Selected to 2017 OCBJ’s Best Places to Work List

    Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Little Changed in January

    Seven Coats Rose Attorneys Named to Texas Rising Stars List

    Gardeners in the City of the Future: An Interview with Eric Baczuk

    Sixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    Contractors Sued for Slip

    Crane Firm Pulled Off NYC Projects Following Multiple Incidents

    Lennar Profit Tops Estimates as Home Prices Increase

    Schools Remain Top Priority in Carolinas as Cleanup From Storms Continues

    Pine River’s Two Harbors Now Targets Non-Prime Mortgages

    Court Finds That Limitation on Conditional Use Permit Results in Covered Property Damage Due to Loss of Use

    City Sues over Leaking Sewer System

    Professor Stempel's Excpert Testimony for Insurer Excluded

    WARN Act Exceptions in Response to COVID-19

    Construction Slow to Begin in Superstorm Sandy Cases

    New Jersey Construction Worker Sentenced for Home Repair Fraud
    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. Leveraging 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

    Teaming Agreements- A Contract to Pursue a Solicitation and Negotiate

    November 23, 2020 —
    Teaming agreements are practical and useful agreements on public projects where a prime contractor teams with a subcontractor for purposes of submitting a bid or proposal in response to a solicitation. The prime contractor and subcontractor work together to pursue that solicitation and have the government award the contract to the prime contractor. The teaming agreement allows for information to be confidentially shared (estimating and pricing, construction methodologies, systems, and suggestions, value engineering, etc.) where the subcontractor agrees that it will only pursue the solicitation with the prime contractor. In other words, the subcontractor ideally is not going to submit pricing to another prime contractor proposing or bidding on the same project and is not going to share information the prime contractor has furnished to it. Likewise, the prime contractor is not going to use the subcontractor’s information for purposes of finding another subcontractor at a lower price and is agreeing to use its good faith efforts or best attempts to enter into a subcontract with the subcontractor if it is awarded the project. This is all memorialized in the teaming agreement. The potential problem lies with language that requires the parties to use their good faith efforts or best attempts to enter into a subcontract if the project is awarded to the prime contractor. In essence, this can become a disfavored “agreement to agree” to a future contract that could allow either party to create an argument to back out of the deal under the auspice that they could not come to terms with the subcontract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    The Construction Industry Lost Jobs (No Surprise) but it Gained Some Too (Surprise)

    October 12, 2020 —
    The announcement this week by major airlines and then by Disney that they will be laying off tens of thousands of workers is just the latest in what we already know: The coronavirus pandemic has adversely impacted workers around the world. And the construction industry is no exception, although its impacts have been uneven, and in some cases surprisingly good. According to a report by the Associated General Contractors of America, 39 states lost construction jobs between August 2019 and August 2020 while 31 states and the District of Columbia added construction jobs between July and August 2020. California saw the largest decline in construction jobs between August 2019 and August 2020, down 52,000 jobs or 5.8%, followed by by New York (-46,000 jobs/-11.3%), Texas (-39,300 jobs/-5.0%), Massachusetts (-20,200 jobs/-12.4%) and Illinois (-17,200/-7.5%). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    A Court-Side Seat: A FACA Fight, a Carbon Pledge and Some Venue on the SCOTUS Menu

    November 02, 2020 —
    In this summary of recent developments in environmental and regulatory law, venues are challenged, standing is upheld, statutory exemption is disputed and more. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Change Must Come from Within … Maryland? As the new term begins, the Court has agreed to review BP PLC v. Mayor and City Council of Maryland, a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which held that a climate change damages case filed against many energy companies must be heard in the state courts of Maryland and not the federal courts. The petitioners argue that the federal office removal statute authorizes such removal, and the Fourth Circuit’s contrary decision conflicts with rulings from other circuit courts. THE FEDERAL COURTS Where Is the Fund in That? On September 25,2020, in U.S. House of Representatives v. Mnuchin, et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the lower court should not have dismissed a lawsuit filed by the U.S. House of Representatives challenging the Executive Branch’s transferal of appropriated funds to the Department of Defense to build a physical barrier along the southern border of the United State. The case is More than $8 billion is at stake, a sum that had been transferred from various federal accounts not involved with building the wall. The appeals court held that the lower court should not have dismissed this lawsuit because the House of Representatives had standing to bring this lawsuit even if the U.S. Senate was not involved with this litigation. Accordingly, the case was returned to the lower court for additional findings, with the appeals court noting that the Constitution’s Appropriation’s Clause serves as an important check on the Executive Branch. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    Yet Another Reminder that Tort and Contract Don’t Mix

    January 25, 2021 —
    I have stated on numerous occasions here at Musings that in Virginia, contract claims and tort claims (read fraud) don’t mix. A recent case from the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia presents another example of this principle. In Itility LLC v. The Staffing Resource Group, Judge Ellis of the Alexandria Division, considered ITility’s claims of fraud and breach of contract against SRG and one of its officers based upon SRG’s alleged violation of its duties under a teaming agreement. The claim by ITility was that TSRG provided false and misleading resumes and thus damaged ITility. SRG filed a Motion to Dismiss and the Court was therefore required to resolve the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff’s fraud claim is barred by Virginia’s “source of duty” rule; (2) whether plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference with a business expectancy is barred by SRG’s participation in the business expectancy, and (3) whether the teaming agreement between the parties bars plaintiff’s claims for consequential and punitive damages. Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill Mr. Hill may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Defense Dept. IG: White House Email Stonewall Stalls Border Wall Contract Probe

    December 14, 2020 —
    After nearly one year of work, the U.S. Defense Dept.’s Inspector General can’t finish a congressionally-ordered probe of a $400-million U.S-Mexico border wall construction award last December to contractor Fisher Sand & Gravel because agency attorneys won't allow release of requested DOD and White House e-mails related to the contract, Acting Inspector General Sean O’Donnell said in a Nov. 30 report to Congress. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Faulty Workmanship Claim

    December 21, 2020 —
    The manufacturer of roofing and waterproofing systems was unsuccessful in securing coverage for alleged faulty workmanship due to the "your work" and "your product" exclusions. Siplast, Inc. v. Emplrs Mut. Cas. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176539 (N.D. Texas Sept. 25, 2020). Siplast was sued in New York by the Archdiocese for work done at Cardinal Spellman High School. The Archdiocese purchased a Siplast Roof System for the high school. Vema Enterprises installed the roof system. The roof system was covered by a guarantee. After completion, school officials noticed water damage in the ceiling tiles throughout the school. A consultant hired by the Archdiocese concluded that the leaks were caused by the workmanship and the materials that were compromising the entire roof membrane and system. Siplast determined the guarantee was not applicable. The Archdiocese informed Siplast that it would repair the roof and hold Siplast liable for the costs. Siplast gave notice of the claim to Employers, but coverage was denied. 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

    English High Court Finds That Business-Interruption Insurance Can Cover COVID-19 Losses

    November 02, 2020 —
    In a decision that will influence how policyholders and insurers around the world address business-interruption coverage for COVID-19 losses, the English High Court recently handed down its much-anticipated judgment in the “Test Case,” The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) v. Arch et al. The High Court’s comprehensive analysis will likely serve as an additional tool in policyholders’ arsenal in the ongoing battles over COVID-19 coverage. The Panel, composed of two well-respected judges, one from the High Court (the UK’s trial court) and the other from the English Court of Appeal, analyzed 21 sample policy wordings in coverage extensions for business-interruption losses due to disease or the issuance of public authority orders. (Many of these wordings are also found in policies sold to US policyholders.) The High Court found that the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing government actions fell within the coverage provided by the sample policy wordings. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Jorge R. Aviles, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at Mr. DeVries may be contacted at Mr. McDermott may be contacted at Mr. Aviles may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The California Privacy Rights Act Passed – Now What?

    November 09, 2020 —
    The ballot initiative, Proposition 24, has been passed by voters in yesterday’s election. What does this proposition entail and how does it impact the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)? What’s Covered in Proposition 24 - The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) The CPRA, among other things, does the following:
    • Revises the existing CCPA to expand consumer rights with respect to personal information and sensitive personal information;
    • Creates a new agency responsible for enforcing the CPRA; and
    • Increases penalties for violations related to the personal information of children under the age of 16.
    As for additional consumer rights, the CPRA offers consumers the opportunity to request a correction of inaccurate personal information. In addition, a consumer may direct a company to “limit its use of the consumer's sensitive personal information” to a use that an average customer would expect. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Heather Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion
    Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at