BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineer
    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


    Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    Home insurance perks for green-friendly design (guest post)

    No Additional Insured Coverage for Subcontractor's Work Outside Policy Period

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

    Navigating Complex Preliminary Notice Requirements

    2019 California Construction Law Update

    The Need for Situational Awareness in Construction

    Consultant’s Corner: Why Should Construction Business Owners Care about Cyber Liability Insurance?

    Water Bond Would Authorize $7.5 Billion for California Water Supply Infrastructure Projects

    Connecticut Federal District Court Keeps Busy With Collapse Cases

    No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

    Broker Not Liable for Failure to Reveal Insurer's Insolvency After Policy Issued

    Newmeyer & Dillion Appoints Partner Carol Zaist as General Counsel

    One World Trade Center Tallest Building in US

    The Ghosts of Projects Past

    The 411 on the New 415 Location of the Golden State Warriors

    Although Property Damage Arises From An Occurrence, Coverage Barred By Business Risk Exclusions

    Product Liability Alert: “Sophisticated User” Defense Not Available by Showing Existence of a “Sophisticated Intermediary”

    Are You Ready For 2015?

    Colorado statutory “property damage” caused by an “occurrence”

    Framework, Tallest Mass Timber Project in the U.S., Is On Hold

    Colorado Court of Appeals to Rule on Arbitrability of an HOA's Construction Defect Claims

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twelve White and Williams Lawyers

    Mid-Session Overview of Colorado’s 2017 Construction Defect Legislation

    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

    Negligence Claim Not Barred by Gist of the Action Doctrine

    Manhattan Condos at Half Price Reshape New York’s Harlem

    The Sensible Resurgence of the Multigenerational Home

    Best U.S. Home Sales Since 2007 Show Momentum in Housing Market

    What to Do Before OSHA Comes Knocking

    Settling with Some, But Not All, of the Defendants in a Construction Defect Case

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

    Hotel Claims Construction Defect Could Have Caused Collapse

    Another Las Vegas Tower at the Center of Construction Defect Claims

    Collapse Claim Dismissed

    No Third-Quarter Gain for Construction

    Consultant Says It's Time to Overhaul Construction Defect Laws in Nevada

    Manhattan Home Prices Top Pre-Crisis Record on Luxury Deals

    Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.

    Hurricane Harvey: Understanding the Insurance Aspects, Immediate Actions for Risk Managers

    Timely Legal Trends and Developments for Construction

    Pennsylvania Homeowner Blames Cracks on Chipolte Construction

    The Dog Ate My Exclusion! – Georgia Federal Court: No Reformation to Add Pollution Exclusion

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold Due to Insurer

    President Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order and the Construction Industry

    Governor Ducey Vetoes Water and Development Bills

    "Ordinance or Law" Provision Mandates Coverage for Roof Repair

    After $15 Million Settlement, Association Gets $7.7 Million From Additional Subcontractor

    San Diego’s NFL Stadium Dream Counts on Munis for Chargers’ Home
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT EXPERT WITNESS ENGINEER
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Expert Witness Engineer Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Staying the Course, Texas Supreme Court Rejects Insurer’s Argument for Exception to Eight-Corners Rule in Determining Duty to Defend

    April 27, 2020 —
    In responding to a certified question from the Fifth Circuit in Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, the Texas Supreme Court held that the “policy-language exception” to the eight-corners rule articulated by the federal district court is not a permissible exception under Texas law. See Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, 19-0802, 2020 WL 1313782, at *1 (Tex. Mar. 20, 2020). The eight-corners rule generally provides that Texas courts may only consider the four corners of the petition and the four corners of the applicable insurance policy when determining whether a duty to defend exists. State Farm argued that a “policy-language exception” prevents application of the eight-corners rule unless the insurance policy explicitly requires the insurer to defend “all actions against its insured no matter if the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent,” relying on B. Hall Contracting Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 447 F. Supp. 2d 634, 645 (N.D. Tex. 2006). The Texas Supreme Court rejected the insurer’s argument, citing Texas’ long history of applying the eight-corners rule without regard for the presence or absence of a “groundless-claims” clause. The underlying dispute in Richards concerned whether State Farm must defend its insureds, Janet and Melvin Richards, against claims of negligent failure to supervise and instruct after their 10-year old grandson died in an ATV accident. The Richardses asked State Farm to provide a defense to the lawsuit by their grandson’s mother and, if necessary, to indemnify them against any damages. To support its argument that no coverage under the policy existed, and in turn, it had no duty to defend, State Farm relied on: (1) a police report to prove the location of the accident occurred off the insured property; and (2) a court order detailing the custody arrangement of the deceased child to prove the child was an insured under the policy. The federal district court held that the eight-corners rule did not apply, and thus extrinsic evidence could be considered regarding the duty to defend, because the policy did not contain a statement that the insurer would defend “groundless, false, or fraudulent” claims. In light of the extrinsic police report and extrinsic custody order, the district court granted summary judgment to State Farm. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys John C. Eichman, Sergio F. Oehninger, Grayson L. Linyard and Leah B. Nommensen Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Linyard may be contacted at glinyard@HuntonAK.com Ms. Nommensen may be contacted at leahnommensen@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Alexis Crump Receives 2020 Lawyer Monthly Women in Law Award

    August 31, 2020 —
    Los Angeles Partner Alexis G. Crump has been recognized with a 2020 Lawyer Monthly "Women in Law Award." In receiving this honor, Ms. Crump joins an elite group of women from around the world who have influenced the legal profession with their experience and expertise. Lawyer Monthly’s "Women in Law Awards" emerged as one of the first industry awards to celebrate the achievements and contributions made by women working globally in the legal sector and in business. Recognizing women at all levels of seniority, the publication seeks to acknowledge the challenges that female legal professionals regularly overcome to serve their clients and perform at their best. “It is an honor to be recognized alongside so many outstanding and accomplished women. I look forward to continuing to support my colleagues in their work and participating in the global network of female attorneys,” Ms. Crump said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alexis Crump, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Crump may be contacted at Alexis.Crump@lewisbrisbois.com

    Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer

    October 12, 2020 —
    Property insurance policies (first party insurance policies) contain post-loss obligations that an insured must (and should) comply with otherwise they risk forfeiting insurance coverage. One post-loss obligation is the insurer’s right to request the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss. Not complying with a post-loss obligation such as submitting a sworn proof of loss can lead to unnecessary headaches for the insured. Most of the times the headache can be avoided. Even with a sworn proof of loss, there is a way to disclaim the finality of damages and amounts included by couching information as estimates or by affirming that the final and complete loss is still unknown while you work with an adjuster to quantify the loss. The point is, ignoring the obligation altogether will result in a headache that you will have to deal with down the road because the property insurer will use it against you and is a headache that is easily avoidable. And, it will result in an added burden to you, as the insured, to demonstrate the failure to comply did not actually cause any prejudice to the insurer. By way of example, in Prem v. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2044a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), the insured notified their property insurer of a plumbing leak in the bathroom. The insurer requested for the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss per the terms of the insured’s property insurance policy. The insurer follow-up with its request for a sworn proof of loss on a few occasions. None was provided and the insured filed a lawsuit without ever furnishing a sworn proof of loss. The insurer moved for summary judgment due the insured’s failure to comply with the post-loss obligations, specifically by not submitting a sworn proof of loss, and the trial court granted the insurer’s motion. Even at the time of the summary judgment hearing, the insured still did not submit a sworn proof of loss. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    First Suit to Enforce Business-Interruption Coverage Filed

    April 20, 2020 —
    On Monday, Oceana Grill, a restaurant in New Orleans, Louisiana, became the first to file a lawsuit over coverage for COVID-19 business interruption losses. The lawsuit, styled Cajun Conti, LLC, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, et al. (La. Dist. Court, Orleans Parish), seeks a declaratory judgment that an “all risks” property insurance policy issued by Lloyd’s of London must cover losses resulting from the closure of the restaurant following an order by the Governor of Louisiana restricting public gatherings and the Mayor of New Orleans’ order closing restaurants. The Lloyds’ policy, like most first-party property insurance policies, affords coverage for business- interruption losses and contains an “extension of coverage in the event of the businesses closure by order of Civil Authority.” Specifically, the lawsuit seeks a declaration that “the policy provides coverage to plaintiffs for any future civil authority shutdowns of restaurants in the New Orleans area due to physical loss from Coronavirus contamination and that the policy provides business income coverage in the event that the coronavirus has contaminated the insured premises.” Furthermore, according to the complaint, “[t]he policy does not provide any exclusion due to losses, business or property, from a virus or global pandemic.” As the complaint implies, an important issue will be whether the novel coronavirus constitutes the requisite “direct physical loss or damage” under the policy. Understanding COVID-19, its manner of transmission and its ability to live beyond a host organism helps support a conclusion that COVID-19 does indeed amount to the required direct physical loss or damage. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Trust Fund Statutes: Know What’s Required in the State Where Your Project Is Underway

    June 22, 2020 —
    Construction trust fund statutes have been around for decades. At least 15 states have passed similar statutes. Other states, but not all, do not have an express statute but have interpreted state law to hold that payments received by a general contractor and deposited in a business account establishes a “trust fund.” See e.g., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7108. The purpose of these laws is straightforward—protect contractors and suppliers against nonpayment for the labor and materials provided for the construction or repair of property. But while the purpose is straightforward, each state’s law differs by imposing different requirements, different privileges, and different remedies. This article provides an overview of how these statutes work as well as a sampling of important requirements and potential pitfalls that you should look out for when a construction trust fund statute applies to your project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher D. Cazenave, Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Cazenave may be contacted at ccazenave@joneswalker.com

    Keep Your Construction Claims Alive in Crazy Economic Times

    May 25, 2020 —
    Coronavirus is dominating the news. Construction in Virginia is facing what is at best an uncertain future and at worst a series of large scale shutdowns due to COVID-19. The number of cases seem to grow almost exponentially on a daily basis while states and the federal government try and patch together a solution. All of this adds up to the possibility that owners and other construction related businesses could shutter and importantly payment streams can slow or dry up. Aside from keeping your contractual terms in mind and meeting the notice deadlines found in your contract, these uncertain economic times require you to be aware of the claims process. Along with whatever claims process is set out in the contract and your run of the mill breach of contract through non-payment type claims, in times like this payment bond and mechanic’s lien claims are a key way to protect your payment interest. The law has differing requirements for each of these unique types of payment claims. Mechanic’s liens are technical and statute based with very picky requirements. The form and content of a memorandum of lien will be strictly read and in most cases form will trump substance. Further, among other requirements best discussed with a Virginia construction lawyer, you must keep in mind two numbers, 90 and 150. The 90 days is the amount of time that you have in which to record a lien. This deadline is generally calculated from the last date of work (or possibly the last day of the last month in which you did work). File after this deadline and your lien will be invalid because the right to record a lien has expired. The 150 days is a look back from the last day of work or the date of lien filing, whichever is sooner in time. The 150 days applies to the work that can be captured in the lien. In other words, it dictates the amount of the lien. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Guidance for Construction Leaders: How Is the Americans With Disabilities Act Applied During the Pandemic?

    September 28, 2020 —
    With the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous cities and states have mandated infection control practices, including social distancing, mask requirements and sanitization of work areas and tools. As a result, many construction leaders now have questions as to how government guidance related to COVID-19 interacts with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). For example, can a project manager enforce a mask mandate when a construction worker presents a doctor’s excuse noting breathing difficulties? Or, what if the employer is aware that an individual presents a higher risk for severe illness because of an underlying health condition, but that employee does not request an accommodation? Thankfully, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently published guidance relating to these requests that construction leaders can reference. While our goal is to summarize that guidance and provide practical advice for the construction sector, this article does not substitute for situation specific legal counsel. SCENARIO 1: AN EMPLOYEE REFUSES TO WEAR A MASK AND PRODUCES A DOCTOR’S NOTE CITING BREATHING DIFFICULTIES. MUST THE EMPLOYER ACCOMMODATE SUCH A REQUEST? Potentially. Since the request to not wear a mask is considered an accommodation under the ADA, the employer can still require a doctor’s note when considering the accommodation. Reprinted courtesy of Molly Gwin, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Ms. Gwin may be contacted at mgwin@isaacwiles.com

    4 Lessons Contractors Can Learn From The COVID-19 Crisis

    May 25, 2020 —
    At the start of 2020, the industry outlook in construction was positive. Many contractors were optimistic about what the year had in store for construction businesses in terms of profit, expansion of operations, and even payment issues. That was until the COVID-19 pandemic put a wrench in everyone’s business plans. There’s no question about how huge the impact of the novel coronavirus crisis is on business operations. With the federal and state governments implementing strict measures to slow down the spread of COVID-19, construction businesses are experiencing significant delays and disruptions in their operations. Because of the lockdowns and stay-at-home orders, many construction projects are forced to postpone operations or, worse, cancel them altogether. Nevertheless, there are lessons in the COVID-19 pandemic that contractors can learn. Here are some of them. 1. Contractors need to be proactive in meeting preliminary notice requirements Cash is tight in times of crisis. As the economy comes to a standstill, construction businesses will need to deal with decreasing profits. They may even have to dip into their own cash reserves to cover fixed expenses and their employees’ salaries. In times like this, it is crucial that contractors perform due diligence in protecting their right to get paid. The first step in doing so is to prepare preliminary notices. These notices are an important step in the mechanics lien process and without them, chances contractors will not be able to recover the unpaid compensation for the materials they furnished and services they rendered. 2. Force majeure provisions are crucial parts of a contract The novel coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the importance of force majeure provisions in construction contracts. Before the COVID-19 crisis hit business operations, force majeure provisions were typically considered as simple boilerplate clauses. This means they were just there as a standard part of contracts. However, the same force majeure clauses, as well as impossibility of performance provisions, have become crucial in the current crisis. As many construction businesses experience difficulties with their operations, they may not be able to fulfill their contractual responsibilities. The said clauses can give contractors a much-needed reprieve. As the current crisis continues, contractors should review contracts as these provisions can give them more time to finish the job. And in the hopefully near future when the crisis ends, business owners should review the contract creation process and ensure that these clauses included in contracts will be able to address the impact of situations similar to COVID-19. 3. Having solid internal communication is crucial There’s a lot of uncertainty with the COVID-19 situation. With work operations temporarily stopping, the circumstances can be quite stressful for employees. There will be doubts and fears within your workforce on whether work will be back to normal as soon as possible or not. Keeping your workforce well-informed and trusting of your organization is crucial, especially in this time of uncertainty. That is why it is paramount that you have a solid internal communication infrastructure to disseminate information about the current work situation and the next steps that the business will take. In addition, only through proper employee communication can the implementation of social distancing and hygiene measures be effective. 4. Contractors can benefit from flexible work arrangements As the coronavirus crisis has made it necessary for everyone to stay at home, construction businesses should look for ways to continue operations. Expanded work arrangements such as work-from-home setups may just be the solution. Of course, most of the physical work that is needed to be done on-site will be impossible to do at home, but office-based functions such as sales, client relations, design, and administrative roles can still continue. This can even have additional benefits to productivity and health. And when the crisis is over, business owners should consider incorporating these work arrangements into their operations permanently. The COVID-19 crisis is not showing any sign of stopping soon, and even when it ends, it will take quite a long time before we can be back to business as usual. As the crisis continues, however, business owners should take the situation as a learning experience. Once the COVID-19 crisis is over, it will take a long time for things to go back to normal. In fact, things may not end up going back to the way they were before and businesses will need to adapt to the new normal. However the situation evolves, business owners should take this opportunity to learn new things and maintain resilience in trying times. About the Author: Patrick Hogan is the CEO of Handle.com, where they build software that helps contractors, subcontractors, and material suppliers with late payments. Handle.com also provides funding for construction businesses in the form of invoice factoring, material supply trade credit, and mechanics lien purchasing. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of