• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction 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

    Where Standing, Mechanic’s Liens, and Bankruptcy Collide

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

    Conflicts of Laws, Deficiency Actions, and Statutes of Limitations – Oh My!

    Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements

    Excess Carrier's Declaratory Judgment Action Stayed While Underlying Case Still Pending

    Wendel Rosen Attorneys Named as Fellows of the Construction Lawyers Society of America

    Ohio Does Not Permit Retroactive Application of Statute of Repose

    No Coverage for Foundation Collapse

    Housing Starts in U.S. Beat 1 Million Pace for Second Month

    Brown Orders Mandatory Water Curbs for California Drought

    Pool Contractor’s Assets Frozen over Construction Claims

    New California Standards Go into Effect July 1st

    Another Reason to Love Construction Mediation (Read: Why Mediation Works)

    Insurer Must Defend Contractor Against Claims of Faulty Workmanship

    Northern District of Mississippi Finds That Non-Work Property Damages Are Not Subject to AIA’s Waiver of Subrogation Clause

    Arizona Contractor Designs Water-Repellant Cabinets

    Assignment Endorsement Requiring Consent of All Insureds, Additional Insureds and Mortgagees Struck Down in Florida

    Two Injured in Walkway Collapse of Detroit Apartment Complex

    Building Group Has Successful 2012, Looks to 2013

    “Good Faith” May Not Be Good Enough: California Supreme Court to Decide When General Contractors Can Withhold Retention

    Building Inspector Refuses to State Why Apartments Condemned

    No Bond, No Recovery: WA Contractors Must Comply With WA Statutory Requirements Or Risk Being Barred From Recovery If Their Client Refuses To Pay

    Manhattan Site for Supertall Condo Finds New Owner at Auction

    Housing Markets Continue to Improve

    Brenner Base Tunnelers Conquer Peaks and Valleys in the Alps

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

    How to Protect the High-Tech Home

    Colorado Supreme Court Grants the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes

    Coverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not Covered

    Corps of Engineers to Prepare EIS for Permit to Construct Power Lines Over Historic James River

    Four Companies Sued in Pool Electrocution Case

    When Brad Pitt Tried to Save the Lower Ninth Ward

    Mixed Reality for Construction: Applicability and Reality

    The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

    New York Bars Developers from Selling Condos due to CD Fraud Case

    A New Perspective on Mapping Construction Sites with the Crane Camera System

    Ninth Circuit Holds Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Applies Beyond All-Risk Policies

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Highlighted | 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers

    Texas Supreme Court Rules on Contractual Liability Exclusion in Construction Cases

    The “Right to Repair” Construction Defects in the Rocky Mountain and Plains Region

    Three Attorneys Elevated to Partner at Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP

    Seattle’s Tallest Tower Said Readying to Go On the Market

    Patriarch Partners Decision Confirms Government Subpoenas May Constitute a “Claim” Under D&O Policy; Warns Policyholders to Think Broadly When Representing Facts and Circumstances to Insurers

    4 Breakthrough Panama Canal Engineering Innovations

    Dispute between City and Construction Company Over Unsightly Arches

    Wait, You Want An HOA?! Restricting Implied Common-Interest Communities

    How Long is Your Construction Warranty?

    Alabama Supreme Court Reverses Determination of Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    District Court denies Carpenters Union Motion to Dismiss RICO case- What it Means

    Eight Things You Need to Know About the AAA’s New Construction Arbitration Rules
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 5500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Expert Witness Engineer Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Know your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in Effect

    November 04, 2019 —
    The Colorado legislature had a busy session this year. Among the several significant bills it enacted, HB1170 strengthens tenant protections under the implied warranty of habitability. It became effective on August 2, 2019, so landlords and tenants alike are now subject to its requirements. The bill makes numerous changes to Colorado’s implied warranty of habitability, and interested parties should review the bill in detail. Landlords in particular may want to consider retaining legal counsel to make sure they have proper procedures in place to promptly deal with any habitability complaints within the new required timelines. This posting is not intended to provide a comprehensive guide to the changed law, but simply to highlight some of the most significant changes. With that caveat, landlords and tenants should be aware that as of August 2, 2019:
    • The following conditions are now deemed to make a residential residence uninhabitable for the purposes of the implied warranty of habitability:
      • The presence of mold, which is defined as “microscopic organisms or fungi that can grow in damp conditions in the interior of a building.”
      • A refrigerator, range stove, or oven (“Appliance”) included within a residential premises by a landlord for the use of the tenant that did not conform “to applicable law at the time of installation” or that is not “maintained in good working order.” Nothing in this statute requires a landlord to provide any appliances, but these requirements apply if the landlord either agreed to provide appliances in a written agreement or provided them at the inception of the tenant’s occupancy.
      • Other conditions that “materially interfere with the tenant’s life, health or safety.”
      Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mcklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
      Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at

      Clean Water Act Cases: Of Irrigation and Navigability

      January 06, 2020 —
      The federal courts have recently decided two significant Clean Water Act (CWA) cases: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler, where the US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia held that the 2015 rulemaking proceeding of EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers redefining the term “Waters of the United States” in the CWA violated the Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act; and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, et al. v. Glaser, where the appeals court ruled that the lower court erroneously interpreted a CWA NPDES permitting exception involving agricultural return flows. An Absence of Navigability: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler Decided on August 21, 2019, the district court, one of the few courts to grapple with the rule’s compliance with the CWA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), held that the agencies’ redefinition of the terms “Interstate Waters,” “Tributaries” and “Adjacent Waters” violated the CWA by reading “navigability” out of the new definitions, or by failing to adhere to the Supreme Court’s rulings in the 2005 case of Rapanos v. United States, in particular Justice Kennedy’s concurrence regarding the application of the “significant nexus” in case-by-case adjudications as to whether a particular body of water was covered by the Act. Moreover, some provisions of the rule conflicted with the APA because they were not a logical outgrowth of the rules proposed by the agencies in 2014, and on which they solicited comments, and other determinations were not supported by a reasonable explanation. In addition, without a clear statement from Congress that it supported the rule’s effect of increasing the nature and extent of enhanced federal jurisdiction over waters subject to the CWA, the court was loathe to approve the rule. Accordingly, the rule was remanded to the agencies for additional review consistent with this decision. This decision is of particular importance as it may well be the first case to subject this new EPA rule—the linchpin of much of EPA’s regulation under the CWA—to extended review. (Other courts have only been asked to enjoin the rule, which involves a different type of review.) Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
      Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

      Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement

      December 02, 2019 —
      In Draggin’ Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Junkermier, et al.1 the Montana Supreme Court held that where an insurer defends its insured and the insured subsequently settles the claims without an insurer’s participation, a court may approve the settlement as between the underlying plaintiff and underlying defendant, but the settlement will not be presumed reasonable as to the insurer. Therefore, an insurer who defends its insured cannot be bound by a stipulated settlement that the insurer did not expressly consent to. The case involved Draggin’ Y Cattle Company (the “Cattle Company”), a ranching and cattle business that utilized the services of an accounting firm, Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (“Junkermier”), to structure the sale of real property to take advantage of favorable tax treatment. It was discovered that Junkermier’s employee misinformed the Cattle Company’s owners of the tax consequences of the sale. The Cattle Company’s owners subsequently filed suit against Junkermier and its employee and alleged nearly $12,000,000 in damages due to the error. Junkermier’s insurer, New York Marine, provided a defense for Junkermier and its employee. The Cattle Company’s owners offered to settle the claims against Junkermier and its employee for $2,000,000, the policy limit of the New York Marine policy. New York Marine refused to give its consent or tender the policy’s limit. Subsequently, Junkermier, its employee, and the Cattle Company entered into their own settlement agreement for $10,000,000. The settlement was contingent upon a reasonableness hearing to approve the stipulated agreement. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
      Ms. Byrd may be contacted by

      Trio of White and Williams Attorneys Named Top Lawyers by Delaware Today

      January 06, 2020 —
      White and Williams is pleased to announce that John Balaguer, Managing Partner of the Wilmington office, Partner Stephen Milewski, and Counsel Dana Spring Monzo have been chosen by their peers as Delaware Today's 2019 "Top Lawyers." The annual list recognizes John, Steve and Dana in the practice area of Medical Malpractice, Defense. Delaware Today conducts an annual survey of the 4,900 members of the Delaware State Bar Association to identify top lawyers in specific practice areas. The magazine’s editors compile the results to create the annual Top Lawyers list, which is published in the November issue. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys John Balaguer, Stephen Milewski and Dana Monzo Mr. Balaguer may be contacted at Mr. Milewski may be contacted at Ms. Monzo may be contacted at Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of

      California’s Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements: Public Works and AB 3018, What You Need to Know

      December 09, 2019 —
      Do you have the proper skilled and trained workforce for your construction projects? If you take on public works projects in California, you may not be in compliance with the new changes in the law. To avoid civil penalties or nonpayment and potentially being precluded from future bids on public works contracts, you must critically review your team and proposal prior to accepting an award. Once awarded a public contact requiring a skilled and trained workforce, diligent reporting practices and oversight are required to maintain compliance. Compliance with California’s skilled and trained workforce requirements for contractors, engineers, architects, design professionals, and suppliers competing for public works construction projects in California is mandated through enforcement with the enactment of AB 3018. Signed by Governor Brown in his last legislative session, AB 3018 dramatically increased the penalties for non-compliance with the existing skilled and trained workforce requirements in California. The new penalties include civil fines by the Labor Commissioner up to $10,000 per month per non-compliant contractor, disqualification from bidding on future public works contract, and withholding of payment for delinquent contractors. This update provides information on California’s skilled and trained workforce requirements, identifies key issues on compliance to avoid penalties, and discusses the impact of enforcement on construction professionals’ business practices. Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani and Nicholas Krebs, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at Mr. Krebs may be contacted at Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of

      Know What You’ve Built: An Interview with Timo Makkonen of Congrid

      September 09, 2019 —
      Construction contains thousands of big and small tasks. How can a client and contractor know if they have all been completed as intended? Congrid offers an answer to that question. Congrid is a Finnish construction software developer. The company provides software for punch lists, quality and safety audits, and design document distribution. It operates in Finland, Sweden, and the U.K. The company’s founding team members, collectively, offer a combination of expertise in construction management, software development, and marketing and sales. “I come from the electronics industry. I came into this business through my old schoolmates,” says Timo Makkonen, Congrid’s CEO. “My specialty is business development and leadership.” Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
      Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at

      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 Mr. Carroll may be contacted at Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of

      Reporting Requirements for Architects under California Business and Professions Code Section 5588

      December 22, 2019 —
      Below is an overview of the changes to California Business and Professions Code Section 5588 and its effect on the reporting requirements, for architects, in the construction industry. Section 5588 Prior to 2005 Legislative Changes Section 5588 of the California Business and Professions Code sets forth the reporting requirements for many business professionals including architects. Since 1979, Section 5588 has required architects and their insurers to report to the California Architect Board (the Board) “any settlement or arbitration award in excess of five thousand dollars ($ 5,000) of a claim or action for damages caused by the license holder’s fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice.”1 The language of the code section left open for interpretation the question of what types of settlement claims must be reported to the Board. Thus, in 2004, the Attorney General of the State of California published an opinion stating that a reportable settlement includes “any agreement resolving all or part of a demand for money which is based upon an insured architect’s alleged wrongful conduct.”2 He then went on to conclude that the only qualifications placed on the term “claim” for purposes of Section 5588 is that “(1) the demand be premised on the license holder’s alleged ‘fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice,’ and (2) the value of the claim, as measured by the settlement amount or arbitration award, exceeds $5,000.”3 Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Jordan Golden, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani