BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims 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


    Congratulations 2016 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    BWBO Celebrating Attorney Award and Two New Partners

    Hawaii Construction Defect Law Increased Confusion

    Following Pennsylvania Trend, Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Construction Defect

    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    Georgia Passes Solar CUVA Bill

    Apple to Open Steve Jobs-Inspired Ring-Shaped Campus in April

    Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules

    Policy Reformed to Add New Building Owner as Additional Insured

    Congratulations to Nine Gibbs Giden Partners Selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    A Trivial Case

    Construction Contract Basics: No Damages for Delay

    If Passed, New Bill AB 2320 Will Mandate Cyber Insurance For State Government Contractors

    Litigation Counsel of America Honors Partner Victor Anderson with Peter Perlman Award

    Louisiana Couple Claims Hurricane Revealed Construction Defects

    New OSHA Fall Rules to Start Early in Minnesota

    Property Owner’s Defense Goes Up in Smoke in Careless Smoking Case

    Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Faulty Work By Subcontractor Constitutes "Occurrence"

    Insurance Company Must Show that Lead Came from Building Materials

    Pay Inequities Are a Symptom of Broader Gender Biases, Studies Show

    Feds Used Wire to Crack Las Vegas HOA Scam

    MapLab: Why More Americans Are Moving Toward Wildfire

    Insurance Attorney Gary Barrera Joins Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group

    Rising Construction Disputes Require Improved Legal Finance

    Texas City Pulls Plug on Fossil Fuels With Shift to Solar

    Taking Service Network Planning to the Next Level

    Recent Amendments and Caselaw Affecting the Construction Industry in Texas

    Toll Brothers Surges on May Gain in Deposits for New Homes

    Policy Renewals: Has Your Insurer Been Naughty or Nice?

    A DC Office Building Offers a Lesson in Glass and Sculpture

    Boston’s Tunnel Project Plagued by Water

    Subcontractor’s Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    What to Know Before Building a Guesthouse

    Home Prices Up in Metro Regions

    Pollution Created by Business Does Not Deprive Insured of Coverage

    Owners and Contractors Beware: Pennsylvania (Significantly) Strengthens Contractor Payment Act

    Construction and Contract Issues Blamed for Problems at Anchorage Port

    San Francisco House that Collapsed Not Built to Plan

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” and Tier 2 for Orange County by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2023

    Updated: Happenings in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Dealing with Abandoned Property After Foreclosure

    Kiewit and Two Ex-Managers Face Canada Jobsite Fatality Criminal Trial

    Ohio Rejects the Majority Trend and Finds No Liability Coverage for a Subcontractor’s Faulty Work

    “License and Registration, Please.” The Big Risk of Getting Busted for Working without a Proper Contractor’s License

    Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

    Express Warranty Trumping Spearin’s Implied Warranty

    Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

    New Orleans Is Auctioning Off Vacant Lots Online

    Helsinki Stream City: A Re-imagining Outside the System

    Construction Site Blamed for Flooding
    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

    Recent Florida Legislative Changes Shorten Both Statute of Limitation ("SOL") and Statute of Repose ("SOR") for Construction Defect Claims

    March 19, 2024 —
    The Florida Legislature and Governor DeSantis passed Senate Bill 360, effective April 13, 2023, which imposes significant changes to Florida’s statute of limitation (“SOL”) and statute of repose (“SOR”) periods prescribed in Florida Statute § 95.11. In short, the SOL and SOR periods will commence earlier and run earlier, which in effect shortens the time to bring a construction defect claim on both ends of the timeline.1 These changes will have positive impacts for general contractors who may save on insurance premiums with shorter completed operations tails. In other words, the timeframe within which contractors are at risk of being sued for construction-related errors is significantly reduced under the new version of the statute. Owners and developers, on the other hand, may feel that the increased pressure of uncovered construction defects necessitates the filing of lawsuits sooner than they might have otherwise filed. Collectively, all parties involved will certainly have to consider when and how to place their carriers on notice of claims or potential claims and, coupled with Florida’s sweeping changes to fee shifting statutes, insured parties may see more coverage denials which, in turn, could lead to more coverage actions.2 Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Holly A. Rice, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Rice may be contacted at HRice@sdvlaw.com

    Courts Will Not Second-Guess Public Entities When it Comes to Design Immunity

    May 13, 2024 —
    It was a bizarre confluence of events. Jorgen Stufkosky was driving on SR-154 in Santa Ynez, California. Martha Aguayo was driving on the same highway ahead of Stufkosky when she struck a deer causing it to fly across the centerline into traffic from the opposite direction. The deer struck a SUV causing its driver to lose control. The driver of the SUV crossed the same centerline where he collided head on with Stufkosky, killing him. Stufkosky’s children later sued the California Department of Transportation in the case Stufkosky v. California Department of Transportation, 97 Cal.App.5th 492 (2023), alleging that their father’s death was due to Caltrans’ negligent design of SR-153, inadequate number of deer crossing signs, and its high posted speed limit. While in the trial court, Caltrans filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Caltrans was immune from liability under Government Code section 830.6, the so called “design immunity” statute. The trial court agreed and the Stufloskys appealed. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claim

    January 22, 2024 —
    The magistrate judge recommended a determination that the insurer owed a defense to the subcontractor sued for faulty workmanship. Hanover Lloyds Ins Co. v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180877 (W.D. Texas Oct. 5, 2023). Poe Investments, Ltd. entered into an agreement with Jordan Foster Construction, LLC for construction of an auto sales and service facility ("Facility"). Jordan hired multiple subcontractors, including Texas Electrical Contractors, LLC ("TEC"). Subsequently, Poe sold the Facility to 6330 Montana, LLC ("Montana"). Montana filed suit against Jordan for breach of express warranties, breach of contract, and negligence. Jordon filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractors, including TEC. Jordan alleged that TEC provided "defective and negligent construction work" while carrying out the provision and installation of electrical and fire alarm systems at the Facility. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Saving Manhattan: Agencies, Consultants, Contractors Join Fight to Keep New York City Above Water

    November 27, 2023 —
    In densely populated cities surrounded on all sides by water—the borough of Manhattan in New York City as a prime example—the risks from sea level rise and climate change are not just hypotheticals; they are existential threats. Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record and Corinne Grinapol, Engineering News-Record Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com Read the full story...

    Let’s Talk About a Statutory First-Party Bad Faith Claim Against an Insurer

    February 19, 2024 —
    Let’s talk about a statutory first-party bad faith claim against an insurer under Florida law. A recent opinion, discussed below, does a nice job providing a synopsis of a first-party statutory bad faith claim against an insurer: The Florida Legislature created the first-party bad faith cause of action by enacting section 624.155, Florida Statutes, which imposes a duty on insurers to settle their policyholders’ claims in good faith. The statutory obligation on the insurer is to timely evaluate and pay benefits owed under the insurance policy. The damages recoverable by the insured in a bad faith action are those amounts that are the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the insurer’s bad faith in resolving a claim, which include consequential damages. “[A] statutory bad faith claim under section 624.155 is ripe for litigation when there has been (1) a determination of the insurer’s liability for coverage; (2) a determination of the extent of the insured’s damages; and (3) the required [civil remedy] notice is filed pursuant to section 624.155(3)(a).” Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Surfside Condo Collapse Investigators Have Nearly Finished Technical Work

    March 11, 2024 —
    Newly analyzed evidence in the investigation into the June 2021 partial collapse of Champlain Towers South that killed 98 people in Surfside, Fla., shows that the pool deck collapsed more than four minutes before the tower itself. But investigators are still working to determine the initiating event, and aim to finish their technical work this summer. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story...

    Top Developments March 2024

    April 22, 2024 —
    CLAIMS-MADE COVERAGE Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Syngenta Crop Prot. LLC, 2024 Del. LEXIS 68 (Del. Feb. 26, 2024) Delaware Supreme Court concludes that a letter from a lawyer informing an insured of possible lawsuits without identifying potential plaintiffs or demanding payment is not a “claim for damages” within the meaning of claims-made CGL and umbrella liability policies. Citing case law from Delaware and other jurisdictions, it reasoned that, in the ordinary sense, a “claim for damages” (which the policies did not define) is “a demand or request for monetary relief by or on behalf of an identifiable claimant.” According to the court, the letter in question did not meet this definition because it did not identify any claimants “except in the vaguest terms” or request monetary relief on any claimant’s behalf, but rather communicated only a threat of future litigation. As a result, the letter was not a claim made before the policy periods at issue. POLLUTION EXCLUSION Wesco Ins. Co. v. Brad Ingram Constr., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1488 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2024) A divided Ninth Circuit panel, applying California law, holds that a pollution exclusion* in a CGL policy does not preclude a duty to defend an underlying suit alleging physical injury from exposure to “clouds of toxic dust” deposited in the environment by a wildfire and released during clean up efforts. Citing MacKinnon v. Truck Ins. Exch., 73 P.3d 1205 (Cal. 2003), the majority explained that determining whether a “pollution event” (i.e., “environmental pollution”) resulting in excluded injury has occurred involves consideration of “the character of the injurious substance” and whether the exposure resulted from a “mechanism specified in the policy.” It concluded that a potential for coverage (and, therefore, a defense obligation) existed because, although wildfire debris may be considered a “pollutant” in certain circumstances, the mechanism alleged in the underlying complaint – “expos[ure] . . . to clouds of toxic dust during the loading and unloading of [the underlying plaintiff’s] truck” – did not clearly constitute an “event commonly thought of as pollution.” Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Los Angeles Seeks Speedier Way to Build New Affordable Homes

    April 29, 2024 —
    Architect Brian Lane calls it “1,000 ways to no.” That’s the wall of red tape that he and his colleagues at the Santa Monica-based firm Koning Eizenberg hit when they propose affordable housing projects around Los Angeles. Regulations and code enforcement lead to delays, which drive up costs, kill projects, and exacerbate Southern California’s stifling housing shortage. But over the last year, builders say that this bureaucratic morass has eased somewhat, thanks to the mayoral order known as Executive Directive 1. Mayor Karen Bass signed ED 1 shortly after taking office in December 2022, at the site of an infamous project that took more than a decade to be approved. The emergency declaration promised to open a new era, directing city departments involved in planning and decision-making to expedite 100% affordable projects, sidestepping codes and regulations that have long added delays and costs. Approvals that might otherwise have taken a year or more are now mandated to happen within a 60-day window, with building permits to be issued within five days. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Sisson, Bloomberg