BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management 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


    Protect Workers From Falls: A Leading Cause of Death

    Coverage Denied for Ensuing Loss After Foundation Damage

    Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform: HB 17-1279 Approved by Colorado Legislature; Governor’s Approval Imminent

    Liquidated Damages Clause Not Enforced

    U.S. Tornadoes, Hail Cost Insurers $1 Billion in June

    When a Request for Equitable Adjustment Should Be Treated as a Claim Under the Contract Disputes Act

    Suspend the Work, but Don’t Get Fired

    Policy Renewals: Has Your Insurer Been Naughty or Nice?

    Another Colorado Construction Defect Reform Bill Dies

    Fannie Mae Says Millennials Are Finally Leaving Their Parents' Basements

    Speculative Luxury Homebuilding on the Rise

    Trumark Homes Hired James Furey as VP of Land Acquisition

    Insurer Must Defend Claims of Negligence and Private Nuisance

    Insurer Motion to Intervene in Underlying Case Denied

    Client Alert: Absence of a Court Reporter at a Civil Motion Hearing May Preclude Appellate Review

    Fifth Circuit: Primary Insurer Relieved of Duty to Defend Without Release of Liability of Insured

    Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

    Cerberus, Blackstone Loosening Credit for U.S. Landlords

    Bertha – The Tunnel is Finished, but Her Legacy Continues

    Seven Coats Rose Attorneys Named to Texas Rising Stars List

    Recycling Our Cities, One Building at a Time

    Homeowners Should Beware, Warn Home Builders

    ASCE Statement on Passing of Senator Dianne Feinstein

    2023 Construction Law Update

    Homeowners May Not Need to Pay Lien on Defective Log Cabin

    World Cup May Pull Out of Brazil because of Construction Delays

    Miami Building Boom Spreads Into Downtown’s Tent City

    Grupo Mexico Spill Sparks Public Scrutiny of $150 Million Mop-Up

    U.S. Home Lending Set to Bounce Back in 2015 After Slump

    Chinese Millionaire Roils Brokers Over Shrinking Mansion

    ASCE Statement on Senate Passage Of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Disputed Facts on Cause of Collapse Results in Denied Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

    SB 721 – California Multi-Family Buildings New Require Inspections of “EEEs”

    May Heat Wave Deaths Prompt New Cooling Rules in Chicago

    Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Damages in Excess of Policy Limits Do Not Trigger Right to Independent Counsel

    Negligence of Property Appraiser

    Millennials Skip the Ring and Mortgage

    Construction Warranties and the Statute of Repose – Southern States Chemical, Inc v. Tampa Tank & Welding Inc.

    White and Williams Announces Partner and Counsel Promotions

    Waiver of Consequential Damages: The Most Important Provision in a Construction Contract

    Apartment Boom in Denver a Shortcut Around Condo Construction Defect Suits?

    Cooperation and Collaboration With Government May Be on the Horizon

    Summary Judgment in Favor of General Contractor Under Privette Doctrine Overturned: Lessons Learned

    Insurer Must Defend and Indemnify Construction Defect Claims Under Iowa Law

    Bad Faith in the First Party Insurance Context

    Construction Needs Collaborative Planning

    2022 Construction Outlook: Continuing Growth But at Slower Pace

    New York Court Holds Insurer Can Rely on Exclusions After Incorrectly Denying Defense

    Plaza Construction Negotiating Pay Settlement for Florida Ritz-Carlton Renovation

    Another Colorado City Passes Construction Defects Ordinance
    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. Drawing 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

    NTSB Faults Maintenance, Inspection Oversight for Fern Hollow Bridge Collapse

    March 19, 2024 —
    The City of Pittsburgh’s failure to act for more than a decade on repeated maintenance and repair recommendations regarding the Fern Hollow Bridge was the probable cause for the structure’s dramatic 2022 collapse, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said at its Feb. 21, 2024, meeting. The city is the owner of the bridge. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story...

    ABC Safety Report: Construction Companies Can Be Nearly 6 Times Safer Than the Industry Average Through Best Practices

    May 06, 2024 —
    WASHINGTON, April 30, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Associated Builders and Contractors today announced the findings from its 2024 Safety Performance Report, an annual guide to construction jobsite health and safety best practices. The report is unveiled to coincide with Construction Safety Week, May 6-10. The annual safety report also provides a comprehensive understanding of the impact of deploying ABC's STEP Safety Management System, which enables top-performing ABC members to achieve incident rates 576% safer than the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics construction industry average. Established in 1989, STEP provides contractors and suppliers with a robust, no-cost framework for measuring safety data and benchmarking with peers in the industry. ABC's research on more than 900 million work hours completed by participants in the construction, heavy construction, civil engineering and specialty trades in 2023 identified the following foundations of industry-leading safety best practices:
    • Top management engagement: Employer involvement at the highest level of company management produces a 54% reduction in total recordable incident rates, or TRIR, and a 52% reduction in days away, restricted or transferred rates, or DART rates.
    • Substance abuse prevention programs: Robust substance abuse prevention programs/policies with provisions for drug and alcohol testing where permitted lead to a 47% reduction in TRIR and a 48% reduction in DART rates.
    • New hire safety orientation: Companies that conduct an in-depth indoctrination of new employees into the safety culture, systems and processes based on a documented orientation process experience incident rates that are 45% lower than companies that limit their orientations to basic health and safety compliance topics.
    • Frequency of toolbox talks: Companies that conduct daily, 15-to-30-minute toolbox talks reduce TRIR and DART rates by 81% compared to companies that hold them monthly.
    The 2024 ABC Safety Performance Report is based on submissions of unique company data gathered from members that deployed during the 2023 STEP term, Jan. 15-Dec. 15. ABC collects each company's trailing indicator data as reported on its annual Occupational Safety and Health Administration Form 300A ("Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses") and its self-assessment of leading indicator practices from its STEP application. Each data point collected is sorted using statistically valid methodology developed by the BLS for its annual Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Survey and then combined to produce analyses of STEP member performance against BLS industry average incident rates. The report demonstrates that applying industry-leading processes dramatically improves health and safety performance among participants regardless of company size or type of work. Any company can participate in STEP. Visit abc.org/step to begin or continue your safety journey.

    Homeowner Who Wins Case Against Swimming Pool Contractor Gets a Splash of Cold Water When it Comes to Attorneys’ Fees

    February 05, 2024 —
    Looking outside as of late it seems like the glorious, sun-drenched days of Summer are just a nostalgic memory of days long gone. So, to bring back some of those warm-weather memories, I have a swimming pool case for you. Although, like most of the things we write about here on the California Construction Law Blog it’s not all fun-in-the-sun. The Lee Case In Lee v. Cardiff, 94 Cal.App.5th 398 (2023), Homeowner Dianne Lee entered into a construction contact with contractor David Brian Cardiff doing business as Advantage Pools Bay Area for a swimming pool and landscaping project totaling $231,500. It must have been quite a pool. As these things sometimes go, a dispute arose and Cardiff left the job before its was finished. Lee later sued alleging breach of contract, negligent construction and violation of the Contractor State License Law. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Unpunished Racist Taunts: A Pennsylvania Harassment Case With No True 'Winner'

    December 04, 2023 —
    The taunts started in the first days of Andre Pryce’s new job, camouflaged as joking. During the nine months of 2019 spent working as a drill rig hand, mostly in the woods in western Pennsylvania, for a contractor that also performs much construction-related drilling, he said coworkers filled his ears with racist insults. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story...

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!

    January 08, 2024 —
    Congratulations to Newport Partners Tyler Offenhauser and Jonathan Cothran, and Associate Anisha Kohli, who recently prevailed on behalf of BWB&O’s client before the Orange County Superior Court on a highly contested Motion to Quash Service based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely file and serve a DOE Amendment, naming our client. BWB&O’s client was the owner of a building where Plaintiff, a licensed electrician, was electrocuted while performing an upgrade to the building’s electrical infrastructure. Plaintiff’s original lawsuit named only the building’s tenant, who was also represented by BWB&O. BWB&O was successful earlier this year on a Motion for Summary Judgment under the Privette Doctrine and won judgment on behalf of the client/tenant. While that MSJ was pending, Plaintiff surreptitiously added the building’s owner to the suit with a DOE Amendment, after several months earlier learning the owner and then tenant were entities operated by the same individual. However, Plaintiff never informed counsel or any other party of the filing. Moreover, after the MSJ was granted, Plaintiff then waited several more months to serve the building’s owner. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Blueprint for Change: How the Construction Industry Should Respond to the FTC’s Ban on Noncompetes

    May 13, 2024 —
    In a groundbreaking move aimed at fostering fair competition and empowering workers, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a final rule last week to ban noncompete agreements nationwide. This ruling may carry profound implications for the construction industry, prompting construction businesses to reassess their practices and ensure compliance while maintaining competitiveness. Let’s explore how construction companies, large and small, can navigate this regulatory shift effectively. Noncompete clauses have long been a staple in employment contracts within the construction sector, often used to protect proprietary information and retain skilled talent. However, the FTC’s ban on noncompetes demands a reevaluation of these practices. Employers must recognize the potential consequences of noncompliance, including legal repercussions and reputational damage, and take proactive steps to adapt to the new regulatory landscape. Communications with Employees The FTC rule requires employers to provide a form notice of non-enforcement to all present and former employees subject to an unexpired noncompete provisions. However, given the immediate legal challenges to the FTC’s rule and the fact that the 120-day compliance window has not yet begun, there is no reason to take immediate action or begin notifying employees. Instead, business owners should wait for at least 60 days before taking concrete action in response to the rule to see if any court temporarily enjoins the effectiveness of the rule. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Matthew DeVries, Burr & Forman LLP
    Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@burr.com

    Competitive Bidding Statute: When it Applies and When it Does Not

    April 15, 2024 —
    The University of Washington (UW), a public university, aimed to secure a real estate developer for a new building on its campus. The proposal involved an 80-year ground lease (the “Lease”), and developers submitted bids. The selected developer would demolish an existing building, construct a new one, own it during the Lease at its own cost, and UW would lease back a portion, with ownership reverting to UW at the Lease’s end. Alexandria Real Equities, Inc. (ARE) was a finalist but ultimately was not selected, and the Lease was awarded to Wexford Science and Technology, LLC (Wexford). As a result, ARE filed suit against UW asserting three claims: 1) UW lacked authority to execute the Lease, 2) UW didn’t follow required competitive bidding procedures, and 3) UW’s developer selection process was arbitrary and capricious. None of these claims were successful and ARE appealed. Division II of the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed in Alexandria Real Estate Equities Inc. v. Univ. of Wash., __ Wn. App. __, 539 P.3d 54 (2023), a published decision. The Court concluded, based on the facts in that case, that because construction was not publicly funded, UW did not have to follow competitive bidding requirements that were laid out in a statute relevant to state universities. Still, the Court applied the “bright-line cutoff point” that prohibits disappointed bidders from challenging an award once a contract has been executed. See Dick Enterprises, Inc. v. Metro. King County, 83 Wn. App. 566, 572, 922 P.2d 184 (1996). Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mason Fletcher, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Fletcher may be contacted at mason.fletcher@acslawyers.com

    Appraisal Goes Forward Even Though Insurer Has Yet to Determine Coverage on Additional Claims

    December 11, 2023 —
    The trial court's order granting the insured's motion to stay litigation and compel an appraisal was affirmed even though the insurer had not determined coverage on the insured's additional claims.Heritage Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Wellington Place HOA, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 6405 (Fla. Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2023). The insured homeowner's association reported roof damage to its insurer, Heritage, after Hurrican Irma struck. Heritage agreed the damage was covered, but issued no payment because the amount of loss was less than the deductible. The insured hired its own adjuster. The insured requested an extension of the policy's two year time limit to complete repairs because the claim was still in dispute and the insurer had not yet paid sufficient funds to allow necessary repairs. Heritage sent a revised estimate and asked the insured to send its adjuster's estimate in order to address any disputes. The insured submitted its adjuster's estimate of more than $6 million, including, for the first time, the cost to replace all the windows and sliding glass doors. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com