• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco 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

    2017 Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure

    Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

    Save A Legal Fee? Sometimes You Better Talk With Your Construction Attorney

    Dust Obscures Eleventh Circuit’s Ruling on “Direct Physical Loss”

    Karen Campbell, Kristen Perkins to Speak at CLM 2020 Annual Conference in Dallas

    Homebuilding Still on the Rise

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    Miami Building Boom Spreads Into Downtown’s Tent City

    New Jersey Condominium Owners Sue FEMA

    The Five-Step Protocol to Reopening a Business

    Court Makes an Unsettling Inference to Find that the Statute of Limitations Bars Claims Arising from a 1997 Northridge Earthquake Settlement

    Pollution Exclusion Does Not Apply To Concrete Settling Dust

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    Massachusetts Court Holds Statute of Repose Bars Certain Asbestos-Related Construction Claims

    Design Professional Needs a License to be Sued for Professional Negligence

    How to Make the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive

    Texas Federal District Court Dismisses COVID-19 Claim

    Techniques for Resolving Construction Disputes

    Harvey's Aftermath Will Rattle Construction Supply Chain, Economists Say

    Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules

    Insurer’s Attempt to Shift Cost of Defense to Another Insurer Found Void as to Public Policy

    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP Attorneys to Speak at the 2016 National Construction Claims Conference

    Is it the Dawning of the Age of Strict Products Liability for Contractors in California?

    Roots of Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Reach Back a Decade

    Texas Jury Awards $5.3 Million to Company Defamed by Union: Could it work in Pennsylvania?

    Falling Crime Rates Make Dangerous Neighborhoods Safe for Bidding Wars

    Some Insurers Dismissed, Others Are Not in Claims for Faulty Workmanship

    Coverage Established for Property Damage Caused by Added Product

    Construction Defect Coverage Summary 2013: The Business Risks Shift To Insurers

    Better Building Rules Would Help U.K.'s Flooding Woes, CEP Says

    Plaintiff’s Mere Presence in Area Where Asbestos is Present Insufficient to Establish Bystander Exposure

    Indicted Union Representatives Try Again to Revive Enmons

    Jury Instruction That Fails to Utilize Concurrent Cause for Property Loss is Erroneous

    PSA: Performing Construction Work in Virginia Requires a Contractor’s License

    Not so Fast – Florida’s Legislature Overrules Gindel’s Pre-Suit Notice/Tolling Decision Related to the Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Construction Materials Company CEO Sees Upturn in Building, Leading to Jobs

    Claims for Negligence? Duty to Defend Triggered

    Questions of Fact Regarding Collapse of Basement Walls Prevent Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    No Conflict in Successive Representation of a Closely-Held Company and Its Insiders Where Insiders Already Possess Company’s Confidential Information

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage

    U.S., Canada, Mexico Set New Joint Clean-Energy Goal

    California’s Right to Repair Act not an Exclusive Remedy

    Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

    He's the Top U.S. Mortgage Salesman. His Daughter Isn't Buying It

    Florida Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Homeowners Unaware of Construction Defects and Lack of Permits

    LAX Runway Lawsuit a Year Too Late?

    New EPA Regulation for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

    Court Holds That One-Year SOL Applies to Disgorgement Claims Under B&P Section 7031

    Colorado Rejects Bill to Shorten Statute of Repose

    Pinterest Nixes Big San Francisco Lease Deal in Covid Scaleback
    Corporate Profile


    The Fairfield, Connecticut Expert Witness Engineer 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.

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Update – Property Owner’s Defense Goes up in Smoke in Careless Smoking Case

    September 21, 2020 —
    Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to avoid causing harm to neighboring properties. In Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch., 2020 Md. LEXIS 347 (July 27, 2020) (Steamfitters Local), a matter originally discussed in a June 2019 blog post, the Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed that, where the property owner knows or should have known that people are habitually discarding hundreds of cigarette butts into a mulch bed along the boundary of the neighboring property, the property owner owes a duty to its neighbors to prevent the risk of fire. As discussed in Steamfitters Local, a fire originated in a strip of mulch at property owned by the Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 (Union) and caused damage to neighboring properties. The fire occurred when an unknown person discarded a cigarette butt into the mulch. Following the fire, investigators found hundreds of cigarette butts in the mulch where the fire originated. A representative for the Union acknowledged that there were more butts in the mulch “than there should have been” and that, “[i]n the right situation,” a carelessly discarded cigarette could cause a fire. The Union, however, had no rules or signs to prohibit or regulate smoking at the property, where apprentices would often gather prior to class. The insurance companies for the damaged neighbors filed subrogation actions alleging that the Union, as the property owner, failed to use reasonable care to prevent a foreseeable fire. A jury found in favor of the subrogating insurers and the defendants appealed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at

    Contractor Sentenced to Seven Years for Embezzling $3 Million

    July 20, 2020 —
    Michael Medeiros was not a good guy. Ok, on a scale of 1 to 10, maybe not a 9 or 10 (when you’re including guys like Charles Manson), but a solid 6 or 7 at least. The next case, People v. Medeiros, Case No. A155648, 1st District Court of Appeals (March 26, 2020), is less important for its legal holding than as a reminder that while most legal disputes on construction projects end up with one party owing the other party money, sometimes, when a party’s conduct has been really bad, it can end in a loss of liberty (i.e., jail time) as well. People v. Medeiros Medeiros was a painting contractor operating under the name Professional Painting Company, Inc. In the early 1990s, Medeiros met Susan Lambert, who served as the property manager for a homeowners’ association, Woodlake Association, in Hayward, California. Lambert was an alcoholic. Following a series of surgeries in 2005 and 2007 she became addicted to opiates as well. She also had a gambling problem. As a result, Lambert regularly found herself in financial difficulty. And this is where Lambert and Medeiros found that they shared common ground. At some point, Medeiros confided to Lambert that he was having cash flow and tax problems. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Hawaii Federal District Rejects Another Construction Defect Claim

    November 30, 2020 —
    The Federal District Court, District of Hawaii, continued it long line of cases finding no coverage for claims of faulty workmanship. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Summary Judgment RMB Enters., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200468 (D. Haw. Oct. 28, 2020). Property owners entered a construction contract with RMB Enterprises to develop and construct residential structures and a pond. The pond walls enclosed residential spaces, providing structural foundations for the walls of the building. After completion of the project, the pond leaked into its pump room. RMB performed remedial work by injecting epoxy into cracks. Later, water from the pondleaked into the interior of a residence near a staircase. Water also leaked into the master bedroom area causing musty odor, mood growth, and increased humidity. The owners sued RMB asserting breach of contract, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and negligence claims. Nautilus denied coverage. The policy provided that faulty workmanship did not constitute an "occurrence." But when faulty workmanship caused property damage to property other than "your work," then such property damage would be considered caused by an occurrence. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    EEOC Suit Alleges Site Managers Bullied Black Workers on NY Project

    June 15, 2020 —
    Bullying, threats and racial slurs detail alleged “hostile” working conditions for black employees at a now complete cement plant modernization project near Albany, N.Y., in a lawsuit filed June 2 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against CCC Group Inc., a San Antonio, Texas-based general contractor. Emell D. Adolphus, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Certifying Claim Under Contract Disputes Act

    June 08, 2020 —
    Under the Contract Disputes Act (41 USC 7101 en seq.), when a contractor submits a claim to the government in excess of $100,000, the claim MUST contain a certification of good faith, as follows: For claims of more than $100,000 made by a contractor, the contractor shall certify that– (A) the claim is made in good faith; (B) the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of the contractor’s knowledge and belief; (C) the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the Federal Government is liable; and (D) the certifier is authorized to certify the claim on behalf of the contractor. 41 U.S.C. 7103(b)(1). See also 48 C.F.R. s. 33.207(c) as to the wording of the certification. The contracting officer is not required to render a final decision on the claim within 60 days if, during this time period, he/she notifies the contractor of the reasons why the certification is defective. 41 U.S.C. 7103(b)(3). Importantly, the contracting officer’s failure to render a decision within 60 days is deemed an appealable denial. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Landmark Contractor Licensing Case Limits Disgorgement Remedy in California

    November 09, 2020 —
    Contractors performing work in California are required to be licensed by the California State License Board (“CSLB”). Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §7065. Except for sole proprietors, contractors are typically licensed through “qualifiers,” i.e., officers or employees who take a licensing exam and meet other requirements to become licensed on behalf of the contractor’s company. Contractors who perform work in California without being properly licensed are subject to a world of hurt, including civil and criminal penalties (see, e.g., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7028, 7028.6, 7028.7, 7117, and Cal. Labor Code §§ 1020-1022), and the inability to maintain a lawsuit to recover compensation for their work. Cal. Bus & Prof. Code § 7031(a); Hydra Tech Systems Ltd. v. Oasis Water Park, 52 Cal.3rd 988 (1991). But arguably the worst ramification of not being property licensed is that established in Business & Professions Code Section 7031(b), which provides that any person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor may bring an action for the return of all compensation paid for the performance of the work, commonly known as “disgorgement.” This remedy is particularly harsh (often described as “draconian”) because it makes no allowance for the fact that an unlicensed contractor will likely have already paid out the bulk of its compensation to its subcontractors, suppliers and vendors, but nevertheless can be ordered to disgorge all compensation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Candace Matson, Sheppard Mullin
    Ms. Matson may be contacted at

    Risk Protection: Force Majeure Agreements Take on Renewed Relevance

    November 30, 2020 —
    Force majeure clauses have been standard in contracts dating back hundreds of years in the United States—and even longer in Europe. “Force majeure,” which is French for “greater force,” removes liability for unforeseen events that prevent parties from fulfilling contractual obligations. In a year defined by the COVID-19 pandemic, these clauses have gone from boilerplate basics to something worthy of further examination and attention in order to minimize risk for all parties involved in a construction project. Prior to COVID-19, drafters might have considered a localized or regional event that would lead to invoking a force majeure clause. It is doubtful, however, that anybody envisioned the impact on such a world-wide scale. UNDERSTANDING THE AGREEMENTS Force majeure clauses cover unforeseen events, a broad term that encompasses both acts of God and human-caused incidents. These range from natural disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes to acts of terrorism, strikes, political strife, government actions, war and other difficult- or impossible-to-predict disruptions. When such an event occurs, the force majeure clause attempts to remove, or at least reduce, uncertainty as to the rights and liabilities of the parties to the agreement. Reprinted courtesy of Michael E. Carson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Carson may be contacted at

    Federal Court Dismisses Coverage Action in Favor of Pending State Proceeding

    October 12, 2020 —
    The federal district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the coverage action that was parallel to a case pending in state court involving the same parties and same issues pending. Navigators Ins, Co. v. Chriso's Tree Trimming, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129711 (E.D. Calif. July 22, 2020). Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) entered into a tree, brush and wood removal contract with Mount F Enterprises, Inc. Mountain F subsequently entered into a subcontractor agreement with Chriso Tree Trimming, Inc. for work to be performed for PG&E. In August 2017, Chriso attempted to remove a tree, but the tree accidentally fell in the wrong direction and knocked down nearby powerlines. The powerlines came into contact with surrounding brush and started the "Railroad Fire." The fire was eventually contained on September 15, 2017, after 12, 407 acres were burned and 7 structures and 7 homes were destroyed. Five subrogation lawsuits were filed in state court against Chriso and Mountain F by various insurance companies that paid for the damage caused by the Railroad Fire. A policy limits demand to settle all claims against Chriso and Mountain F was made. Navigators insured Chriso for $9 million through a Commercial Excess Liability Policy, payable once all other insurance was exhausted. The policy included a "Professional Services Endorsement" (PSE Exclusion) that excluded coverage of "professional services." "Professional services" was defined through a list of 12 non-exclusive professions and services that generally referred to activities involving specialized knowledge or skill that was predominantly mental or intellectual in nature rather than physical or manual. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at