BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield 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


    Hawaii Supreme Court Construes Designated Premises Endorsement In Insured's Favor

    Building in the Age of Technology: Improving Profitability and Jobsite Safety

    Use of Dispute Review Boards in the Construction Process

    Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Matching of Materials Decided by Appraisers

    Five Years of Great Legal Blogging at Insurance Law Hawaii

    Include Materials Price Escalation Clauses in Construction Clauses

    California Trial Court Clarifies Application of SB800 Roofing Standards and Expert’s Opinions

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 04/20/22

    Boston Nonprofit Wants to Put Grown-Ups in Dorms

    Steel Component Plant Linked to West Virginia Governor Signs $1M Pollution Pact

    Gilbane Project Exec Completes His Mission Against the Odds

    Conn. Appellate Court Overturns Jury Verdict, Holding Plaintiff’s Sole Remedy for Injuries Arising From Open Manhole Was State’s Highway Defect Statute

    Not Remotely Law as Usual: Don’t Settle for Delays – Settle at Remote Mediation

    I.M. Pei, Architect Who Designed Louvre Pyramid, Dies at 102

    House of Digital Twins

    U.S. Construction Spending Rose in 2017 by Least in Six Years

    Las Vegas Partner Sarah Odia Named a 2023 Mountain States Super Lawyer Rising Star

    New Jersey’s Governor Puts Construction Firms on Formal Notice of His Focus on Misclassification of Workers as Independent Contractors

    To Bee or Not to Bee - CA Court Finds Denial of Coverage Based on Exclusion was Premature Where Facts had not been Judicially Determined

    Language California Construction Direct Contractors Must Add to Subcontracts Beginning on January 1, 2022, Per Senate Bill 727

    Lien Attaches To Landlord’s Interest When Landlord Is Party To Tenant Improvement Construction Contract

    U.S. Home Prices Climbed 0.1% in July as Gains Slowed

    Giant Gas Pipeline Owner, Contractor in $900M Payment Battle

    Montana Federal District Court Finds for Insurer in Pollution Coverage Dispute

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

    Texas Federal District Court Dismisses COVID-19 Claim

    Denver Officials Clamor for State Construction Defect Law

    Just Because You Caused it, Doesn’t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine

    Not Pandemic-Proof: The Ongoing Impact of COVID-19 on the Commercial Construction Industry

    Res Judicata Not Apply to Bar Overlapping Damages in Separate Suits Against Contractor and Subcontractor

    Sometimes it Depends on “Whose” Hand is in the Cookie Jar

    California Court of Appeal Clarifies Intent of Faulty Workmanship Exclusions

    Red Tape Is Holding Up a Greener Future

    No Coverage Under Exclusions For Wind and Water Damage

    Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure

    Recent Developments Involving Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington

    Insurer Sued for Altering Policies after Claim

    Colorado Legislature Considering Making it Easier to Prevail on CCPA Claims

    The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations

    What You Need to Know About the Recently Enacted Infrastructure Bill

    New Jersey Strengthens the Structural Integrity of Its Residential Builds

    School Blown Down by Wind Still Set to Open on Schedule

    A Quick Virginia Mechanic’s Lien Timing Refresher

    Homeowners Should Beware, Warn Home Builders

    The EEOC Is Actively Targeting the Construction Industry

    Hunton Insurance Coverage Group Ranked in National Tier 1 by US News & World Report

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Faulty Workmanship Claim

    School System Settles Design Defect Suit for $5.2Million

    Texas Condo Construction Defect Code Amended

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

    Illinois Court Assesses Factual Nature of Term “Reside” in Determining Duty to Defend

    October 30, 2023 —
    In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Guevara, 2023 IL App (1st) 221425-U, P2, the Illinois First District Court of Appeals addressed an insurance carrier’s duty to defend under a homeowners insurance policy. The underlying suit stemmed from an alleged injury suffered at a residence located in Berwyn, Illinois and owned by named insured Luz Melina Guevara, a defendant in the suit. After Guevara tendered the suit, State Farm filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Guevara because Guevara did not “reside” at the insured premises. The policy defined the "insured location" as the "residence premises," and residence premises was defined as "the one, two, three or four-family dwelling, other structures, and grounds or that part of any other building; where you reside and which is shown in the Declarations." In response to the underlying lawsuit, Guevara had filed an answer and affirmative defenses in which Guevara denied the allegation that "At all relevant times, [Guevara] resided in Berwyn, Cook County, Illinois." Guevara admitted that she owned the Berwyn property but denied that she "resided in, maintained and controlled the property". The declaratory judgment complaint alleged (among other things) that, based on admissions by Guevara in her answer, the Berwyn residence was not an "insured location" under the State Farm policy. State Farm moved for summary judgment at the trial court level on this ground and summary judgment was granted in State Farm’s favor. An appeal ensued wherein the parties disagreed as to whether there is a genuine issue of material fact that, under the language of the policy, State Farm had no duty to defend because the Berwyn property was not an "insured location" because she did not "reside" there. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

    New Jersey Court Upholds Registration Requirement for Joint Ventures Bidding on Public Works Contracts

    December 16, 2023 —
    Introduction In a matter of “first impression,” on November 30, 2023, the Appellate Division affirmed the New Jersey Superior Court decision in Ernest Bock & Sons-Dobco Pennsauken Joint Venture v. Township of Pennsauken and Terminal Construction Corp., finding that the New Jersey Public Works Contractor Registration Act, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.48 to -56.57 (“PWCRA” or the “Act”), applies to a joint venture formed for the sole purpose of bidding on a public works contract. Therefore, the Court held that the PWCRA requires any joint venture bidding on public works projects in New Jersey to be registered under the Act at the time of bid submission. Accordingly, the Township of Pennsauken acted within its authority and properly rejected the bid submission of the Ernest Bock & Sons-Dobco Joint Venture which was not registered under the Act in the name of the joint venture at the time of its bid submission, despite the individual members of the joint venture being registered. Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas J. Zaita, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Brian Glicos, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Zaita may be contacted at nzaita@pecklaw.com Mr. Glicos may be contacted at bglicos@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

    Navigating the Construction Burrito: OCIP Policies in California’s Construction Defect Cases

    November 16, 2023 —
    In the early 2000’s, Owner-Controlled Insurance Programs (OCIP) or WRAPS, were traditionally used in large commercial projects of over $50 million in construction costs. As construction defect lawsuits became more prevalent, subcontractors found themselves unable to meet the insurance requirements of their contracts with developers and general contractors because they could not find insurance companies that were willing to insure the risk. This presented a problem for developers and general contractors and left them with no option but to look into new insurance products that would insure them and all subcontractors who worked on the project. OCIPs became in some instances the only insurance option for developers, general contractors, and subcontractors to build single-family or multi-family projects in California and other western states. OCIPS or WRAPS, often likened to the layers of a savory burrito, offer both enticing benefits and potential pitfalls. Just as a burrito’s ingredients can harmonize or clash, OCIP policies can shape the outcome of legal battles, impacting contractors, developers, and insurers alike. Pros – Savoring the OCIP Burrito: 1. Wrapped Protection: Much like a well-folded burrito envelops its contents, OCIP policies offer comprehensive coverage for construction projects. Developers, general contractors, and subcontractors find comfort in knowing that their liability risks are bundled into a single policy, ensuring all enrolled parties have coverage in the event of a claim. Reprinted courtesy of Alexa Stephenson, Kahana Feld and Ivette Kincaid, Kahana Feld Ms. Stephenson may be contacted at astephenson@kahanafeld.com Ms. Kincaid may be contacted at ikincaid@kahanafeld.com Read the full story...

    Allegations Versus “True Facts”: Which Govern the Duty to Defend? Bonus! A Georgia Court Clears Up What the Meaning of “Is” Is

    December 11, 2023 —
    Courts scrutinize a complaint’s factual allegations to decide whether the allegations trigger a duty to defend. [1] If the facts unambiguously exclude coverage, there is no duty to defend. [2] But what if the factual allegations fall within a policy exclusion, but the allegations are untrue or questionable? What if the true facts would mean the exclusion doesn’t apply? In that case, many courts have found that the insurer should base its decision on the policyholder’s version of the “true facts.” [3] An insurer can’t rely on the complaint’s allegations to deny coverage when the facts that the insurer knows or can ascertain show that the claim is covered. [4] A recent case, United Minerals & Properties Inc. v. Phoenix Insurance Co., No. 4:23-cv-00050 (N.D. Ga.), illustrates these policy interpretation principles. Reprinted courtesy of Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at sahmad@HuntonAK.com Read the full story...

    Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis

    January 08, 2024 —
    When an insurer handles a claim in violation of its duty to act in good faith, policyholders are often eager to sue the insurer for bad faith, seeking extra contractual damages. Before filing suit, however, it is critical that policyholders consider what state’s law applies to the bad faith claim. In the recent case of Scott Fetzer Co. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc.1, the Ohio Supreme Court held that Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws, § 145 (“Section 145"), governed the choice of law dispute, which meant that the insured would be able to obtain discovery of Travelers’ claims-handling procedures, guidelines, internal documents, and communications relating to the claim.2 The insured, Scott Fetzer, argued that the materials were discoverable because documents evidencing an insurer’s bad faith are not protected by attorney-client privilege in Ohio. In response, Travelers argued that the laws of either Indiana (the place where the parties entered into the insurance contract), or Michigan (the location of the insured risk) governed the discovery dispute because Restatement (Second) § 193 (“Section 193”) governs the choice of law analysis for claims that “arise out of insurance contracts.”3 The laws of either Indiana or Michigan were more favorable for Travelers because Indiana does not allow discovery of materials covered by attorney-client privilege, and Michigan does not even recognize a cause of action for bad faith. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Janeen M. Thomas, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Thomas may be contacted at JThomas@sdvlaw.com

    Mass Timber Reduces Construction’s Carbon Footprint, But Introduces New Risk Scenarios

    March 04, 2024 —
    Mass timber has the potential to be a critical building component for the cities of the near future given the need for the construction sector to reduce its reliance on concrete and steel to lower its Co2 emissions. However, as this market grows and mass timber buildings evolve to greater heights, the construction risk landscape will also be transformed, bringing risk management challenges for companies, according to the new Emerging Risk Trend Talk report from Allianz Commercial. “The emergence of mass timber as a sustainable construction alternative represents a significant opportunity for the building sector to reduce its carbon footprint while also satisfying a demand for a material that is more cost-efficient but as durable as steel and concrete,” says Michael Bruch, Global Head of Risk Advisory Services at Allianz Commercial. “However, in any industry, deployment of new materials or processes can result in new risk scenarios, potential defects, or unexpected safety consequences, as well as bringing benefits, and mass timber is no different. Given this market’s expected future growth, companies should do all they can to develop a greater understanding of their exposures including fire, water damage, repetitive loss scenarios and even termite infestation, and ensure they have robust loss prevention measures in place to combat these.” The need for mass timber The building and construction sector is among the largest contributors to Co2 emissions, accounting for over 34% of energy demand and around 37% of energy and process related Co2 emissions in 2021 [1]. Given emissions reduction is essential to meet climate change commitments around the world, the need for more sustainable solutions in the built environment has become increasingly important, driven by growing investor and consumer concerns, and legislation, regulation and reporting requirements evolving quickly in many jurisdictions around the world. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Allianz Commercial

    Judge Who Oversees Mass. Asbestos Docket Takes New Role As Chief Justice of Superior Court

    January 02, 2024 —
    Boston, Mass. (December 13, 2023) - Judge Michael Ricciuti, who presides over the Massachusetts state asbestos litigation docket, has been appointed to a new role as Chief Justice of Massachusetts Superior Court, effective December 22, 2023. The appointment is expected to result in the end of his tenure overseeing the state asbestos litigation. Judge Ricciuti was appointed by Governor Charlie Baker to the Superior Court in 2017. He has served in five counties and serves six-month rotations in the Business Litigation Session, in addition to his role overseeing the Massachusetts Asbestos Litigation docket. His current committee participation includes serving on the Superior Court Judicial Education Committee and the Supreme Judicial Court Advisory Committee on Massachusetts Evidence Law. He also serves as a judicial mentor. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Blog Completes Sixteenth Year

    January 29, 2024 —
    Insurance Law Hawaii completes its sixteenth year this month. We began posting in December 2002, 1761 posts ago. The year 2023 has added 105 new posts. The goal is to keep readers in tune with new developments in insurance-related cases from Hawaii and across the country. This year included a big case handled successfully by our office regarding insurers attempt to gain reimbursement of defense costs for uncovered claims. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., et. al v. Bodell Construction Co., et. al, 2023 Haw. LEXIS 194 (Haw. Nov. 14, 2023). We will continue posting important coverage developments in the next year. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com