BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure 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


    Oregon Condo Owners Make Construction Defect Claim

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (11/03/21)

    April Rise in Construction Spending Not That Much

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred By Exclusion j (5)

    California Home Sellers Have Duty to Disclose Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Mind Over Matter: Court Finds Expert Opinion Based on NFPA 921 Reliable Despite Absence of Physical Testing

    Hawaii Federal District Rejects Another Construction Defect Claim

    First Suit to Enforce Business-Interruption Coverage Filed

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Rose More Than Forecast to End 2014

    Haight’s Sacramento Office Has Moved

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

    Client Alert: Design Immunity Affirmative Defense Not Available to Public Entities Absent Evidence of Pre-Accident Discretionary Approval of the Plan or Design

    #5 CDJ Topic: David Belasco v. Gary Loren Wells et al. (2015) B254525

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation: A Redux

    Construction Litigation—Battles on Many Fronts

    L.A. Makes $4.5 Billion Bet on Olympics After Boston Backs Out

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/18/23) – Zillow’s New Pilot Program, Production Begins at Solar Panel Plant in Georgia, and More Diversity on Contracts for Buffalo Bills Stadium

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Stuck on You”

    Small Airport to Grow with Tower

    A General Contractors Guide to Bond Thresholds by State

    What are the Potential Damages when a House is a Lemon?

    Home-Building Climate Warms in U.S. as Weather Funk Lifts

    Ninth Circuit Resolves Federal-State Court Split Regarding Whether 'Latent' Defects Discovered After Duration of Warranty Period are Actionable under California's Lemon Law Statute

    As Laura Wreaks Havoc Along The Gulf, Is Your Insurance Ready to Respond?

    The CA Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review of McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.) As to Whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the Exclusive Remedy for All Defect Claims Arising Out of New Residential Construction

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    London Penthouse Will Offer Chance to Look Down at Royalty

    Damages to Property That is Not the Insured's Work Product Are Covered

    Nevada Bill Aims to Reduce Legal Fees For Construction Defect Practitioners

    Construction Spending Had Strongest Increase in Four Years

    Homeowner’s Claims Defeated Because “Gravamen” of Complaint was Fraud, not Breach of Contract

    Surety Bond Producers Keep Eye Out For Illegal Waivers

    Court of Federal Claims: Upstream Hurricane Harvey Case Will Proceed to Trial

    EPA Can't Evade Enviro Firm's $2.7M Cleanup Site Pay Claim, US Court Says

    Is Arbitration Okay Under the Miller Act? It Is if You Don’t Object

    English v. RKK. . . The Saga Continues

    Facts about Chinese Drywall in Construction

    White and Williams Defeats Policyholder’s Attempt to Invalidate Asbestos Exclusions

    French President Vows to Rebuild Fire-Collapsed Notre Dame Roof and Iconic Spire

    Court Rejects Insurer's Argument That Two Triggers Required

    2018 Construction Outlook: Mature Expansion, Deceleration in Some Sectors, Continued Growth in Others

    U.S. Housing Starts Exceed Estimates After a Stronger December

    Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case

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

    15 Wilke Fleury Lawyers Recognized in 2020 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

    Issues of Fact Prevent Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

    Precedent-Setting ‘Green’ Apartments in Kansas City

    A Trivial Case

    California Assembly Bill Proposes an End to Ten Year Statute of Repose

    Los Angeles Seeks Speedier Way to Build New Affordable Homes
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Construction Expert Witness 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.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Ruling Dealing with Constructive Changes, Constructive Suspension, and the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

    January 22, 2024 —
    A dispute pending in the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) dealt with interesting legal issues on a motion to dismiss. See Appeals of McCarthy Hitt-Next NGA West JV, ASBCA No. 63571, 2023 WL 9179193 (ASBCA 2023). The dispute involves a contractor passing through subcontractor claims due to impacts caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the government’s response to the pandemic. More particularly, the claim centers on the premise that the government “failed to work with [the contractor] in good faith to develop a collaborative and cooperative approach to manage and mitigate the impacts and delays arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.” See Appeals of McCarthy Hitt. The contractor (again, submitting pass through claims from subcontractors) claimed: (a) constructive changes to the contract entitling it to an equitable adjustment under the Changes clause of Federal Acquisition Regulation (F.A.R.) 52.243-4; (b) construction suspensions of the contractor’s work entitling it to an equitable adjustment under the Suspensions of Work clause of F.A.R. 52-242-14; and (c) the government breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Each of these legal issues and theories will be discussed below because they are need-to-know legal issues. Keep these legal issues in mind, and the ASBCA’s ruling on the motion to dismiss as its analysis may demonstrate fruitful in other applications. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    It Pays to Review the ‘Review the Contract Documents’ Clause Before You Sign the Contract

    March 11, 2024 —
    It is fairly common for a construction contract to include a provision requiring the contractor to perform some level of review of the plans and specifications and perhaps other contract documents as part of their responsibilities. Typically, this provision is found in a section of the contract on the contractor’s responsibilities, although it can be anywhere. Owners and contractors are, with reason, focused on three main issues in reviewing contracts: (1) price, costs, and payments, (2) time and scheduling, and (3) scope of the work. Eyes may glaze over the contractor’s responsibilities section. Not only does it seem to be boilerplate, but industry professionals know what a contractor is supposed to do; in a nutshell, build the project. An old school type of contractor may regard this role as strictly following the plans and specifications, no matter what they provide. That could lead to a situation where construction comes to a complete stop because, for example, two elements are totally incompatible with each other. If that happens, the contractor would then turn to the owner and architect to ask for a corrective plan and instructions on how to proceed. That may also be accompanied by a request for more time and money while the problem is resolved. The ‘review the contract documents’ clause is designed to avoid this. It is intended to address an understanding that everyone makes mistakes, even architects and engineers whose job it is to design a buildable, functional project. The clause also addresses the understanding that a contractor is more than a rote implementer of plans and specifications because its expertise in building necessarily means the contractor has expertise in understanding the documents that define the construction and how things are put together. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alan Winkler, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Winkler may be contacted at awinkler@pecklaw.com

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    March 19, 2024 —
    If a tenant defaults under a commercial lease, Arizona law permits the landlord to re-take possession of the premises by locking out the defaulting tenant. However, if the landlord’s lockout is wrongful, the landlord may be liable for the damages the tenant sustains because of the wrongful lockout. To minimize such liability, here are some general best practices to follow when locking out a defaulting tenant:
    • Do Not Breach the Peace. It is vital when performing a lockout to not breach the peace. What constitutes a “breach of the peace” depends on the particular circumstances at hand. For example, if a tenant arrives during the lockout and becomes angry or threatens violence, the landlord should stop performing the lockout and return at a later time. As a general rule of thumb, it is best to perform lockouts in the early morning hours or in the late evening hours when the landlord is less likely to encounter the tenant.
    • Provide A Notice of Default. Many commercial leases require the landlord to provide a notice of default before the landlord can lock out a defaulting tenant. Check, double check, and triple check that the landlord followed the lease’s notice of default provisions correctly, including that the landlord sent the notices to all required parties in accordance with the time requirements set forth in the lease.
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Tighe, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Tighe may be contacted at ptighe@swlaw.com

    Antidiscrimination Clause Required in Public Works and Goods and Services Contracts­ –Effective January 1, 2024

    January 22, 2024 —
    In July 2023, the Washington legislature passed Senate Bill 5186, which mandates inclusion of select antidiscrimination clauses in every state contract and subcontract for public works, goods, or services executed after January 1, 2024.[i] RCW 49.60.530(3) codifies the now-required antidiscrimination clauses, which prohibit four categories of discrimination against any person because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability (the “Protected Class”). Under the new law, public contractors and subcontractors (“Public Contractor”) may not refuse to hire a person because that person is a member of the Protected Class, unless that refusal is based upon a bona fide occupational qualification or if a person with a particular disability would be prevented from properly performing the particular work involved.[ii] Similarly, Public Contractors may not discharge or bar a person from employment or discriminate against any person ­­– either in terms of compensation or other terms and conditions of employment – because that person is a member of the Protected Class.[iii] Last, Public Contractors may not print or circulate (or cause to be printed or circulated) any statement, advertisement, publication, form of application for employment, or make inquiry in connection with prospective employment, which expresses any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to the Protected Class.[iv] Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
    Mr. Colburn may be contacted at travis.colburn@acslawyers.com

    Federal Magistrate Judge Recommends Rescission of Policies

    February 12, 2024 —
    In the recent case of Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. 142 Driggs LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220393, Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recommended granting the insurer's default judgment and holding that of three policies issued to 142 Driggs LLC ("Driggs") be rescinded ab initio. Driggs had represented on its insurance applications that it did not provide parking to anyone other than itself, tenants, and its guests at the subject insured premises. However, Union Mutual learned that Driggs had been renting out three garages to non-tenants. Second, Driggs represented that the mercantile square footage was around 1,000 square feet, when in actuality, it was larger than allowed under the policies. Union Mutual provided underwriting guidelines in connection with its default motion, which state that "parking provided for anyone other than the insured, tenants and their guests," presents an "unacceptable risk." The guidelines also state that answering yes to any "preliminary application questions (which presumably included those regarding mercantile square footage and parking) is an "unacceptable risk." The court held that these guidelines supported a finding that Driggs made material misrepresentation and that Union Mutual relied on these misrepresentations in issuing the policies. The court, as such, recommended that the policies at issue be rescinded from inception. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

    Partner John Toohey and Senior Associate Sammy Daboussi Obtain a Complete Defense Verdict for Their Contractor Client!

    December 11, 2023 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to share that Newport Beach attorneys John Toohey and Sammy Daboussi obtained a complete defense verdict after years-long litigation in favor of their concrete contractor client. This lawsuit arises from a claim made by Plaintiff for construction defects in a high-end single-family home. Our client was hired to perform concrete work on the foundations of the home. It was alleged that the home’s foundation was incorrectly built. It was further alleged that the construction defects/errors led to delays and substantial expenses. We argued that our client relied on the certifications provided to them by design professionals and the City. We further argued that our client, like any reasonable concrete/foundation subcontractor, has no responsibility or obligation, contractual or otherwise, to review and recheck the work completed by a licensed professional. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Appellate Court of Maryland Construes Notice Conditions of A312 Performance Bond in Favor of Surety

    January 02, 2024 —
    The Appellate Court of Maryland issued a reported opinion in a case construing an American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) A312 performance bond. In Wildewood Operating Company, LLC v. WRV Holdings, LLC, et al. 2023 Md. App. LEXIS 720 (Oct. 30, 2023), the Appellate Court of Maryland held that a performance bond surety was discharged from liability where the owner/obligee failed to give the surety notice of the contractor’s default termination until after a third party had completed the work. The project concerned the construction of an assisted living facility in St. Mary’s County, Maryland. The owner, Wildewood Operating Company, LLC, entered into an A312-2010 performance bond with Clark Turner Construction, LLC, as contractor, and First Indemnity of America Insurance Company, as surety. When Clark Turner failed to complete certain stormwater management work adjacent to the site, Wildewood, Clark Turner, and other parties entered into a Work Agreement to address completion of the work. The surety was not a party to the Work Agreement. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joel P. Williams, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Williams may be contacted at williamsj@whiteandwilliams.com

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (4/17/24) – Travel & Tourism Reach All-Time High, President Biden Emphasizes Housing in SOTU Address, and State Transportation Projects Under Scrutiny

    May 13, 2024 —
    In our latest roundup, Airbnb advocates for new short-term rental rules, the U.S. Supreme Court rules on hefty development fees, loan losses becomes a greater issue for banks, and more! Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team