• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projects
    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

    Virginia Decision Emphasizes Importance of Naming All Necessary Parties

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increase at Slower Pace

    Arizona Contractor Designs Water-Repellant Cabinets

    Wow! A Mechanic’s Lien Bill That Helps Subcontractors and Suppliers

    Scaffolding Purchase Suggests No New Building for Board of Equalization

    Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052 Dies in Committee

    The Top 10 Changes to the AIA A201: What You Need to Know

    OSHA Begins Enforcement of its Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard. Try Saying That Five Times Real Fast

    SunEdison Gets Shinsei Bank Funding for Japan Solar Power Plant

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

    Triple Points to the English Court of Appeal for Clarifying the Law on LDs

    Code Changes Pave Way for CLT in Tall Buildings and Spark Flammability Debate

    Insureds' Summary Judgment Motion on Mold Limitation Denied

    Las Vegas, Back From the Bust, Revives Dead Projects

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives First Tier Ranking by U.S. News and World Reports

    Housing-Related Spending Made Up Significant Portion of GDP in Fourth Quarter 2013

    Tender the Defense of a Lawsuit to your Liability Carrier

    In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims

    2016 Updates to CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Retail Leasing Practice Books Now Available

    Land a Cause of Home Building Shortage?

    Supreme Court Finds Insurance Coverage for Intentional (and Despicable) Act of Contractor’s Employee

    Settlement Ends Construction Defect Lawsuit for School

    Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage

    Faulty Workmanship may be an Occurrence in Indiana CGL Policies

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

    Does Arbitration Apply to Contemporaneously Executed Contracts (When One of the Contracts Does Not Have an Arbitration Provision)?

    Steven L. Heisdorffer Joins Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell

    Trio of White and Williams Attorneys Named Top Lawyers by Delaware Today

    Southern California Lost $8 Billion in Construction Wages

    Impasse Over Corruption Charges Costs SNC $3.7 Billion, CEO Says

    Ohio School Board and Contractor Meet to Discuss Alleged Defects

    Toll Brothers Faces Construction Defect Lawsuit in New Jersey

    Almost Half of Homes in New York and D.C. Are Now Losing Value

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Faulty Workmanship Claim

    Homebuilding on the Rise in Nation’s Capitol

    Intricacies of Business Interruption Claim Considered

    South Carolina Supreme Court Requires Transparency by Rejecting an Insurer’s “Cut-and-Paste” Reservation of Rights

    Contractor May Be Barred Until Construction Lawsuit Settled

    No Bond, No Recovery: WA Contractors Must Comply With WA Statutory Requirements Or Risk Being Barred From Recovery If Their Client Refuses To Pay

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

    Oregon Construction Firm Sued for Construction Defects

    HOA Coalition Statement on Construction-Defects Transparency Legislation

    How Well Do You Know the 2012 IECC Code?

    “Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit

    Berkeley Researchers Look to Ancient Rome for Greener Concrete

    Wells Fargo Shuns Peers’ Settlement in U.S in Mortgage

    Homebuyers Aren't Sweating the Fed

    The G2G Year in Review: 2019

    Construction Defect Risks Shifted to Insurers in 2013
    Corporate Profile


    The Fairfield, Connecticut Expert Witness Engineer Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 5,500 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.

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    KONE is Shaking Up the Industry with BIM

    January 20, 2020 —
    KONE supplies elevators, escalators, autowalks and maintenance and modernization solutions. I sat down with Kenneth Flannigan to discuss how BIM is changing KONE and what it means to the industry. KONE operates in over 60 countries, has around 1.3 million units in service, and moves over one billion people per day. The company’s mission is “to improve the flow of urban life.” Kenneth Flannigan is the BIM Solution Owner for the company. He acknowledges that even though KONE provides equipment and software innovation, in this day and age that’s not enough. “We’re a critical path item. How innovative are we if we’re not working on every single project in a shared 3D environment, like our customers?” Flannigan asks. KONE serves both indirect and paying customers. It works with influencers like architects and with general contractors, builders, and construction managers. It also has a life-cycle relationship with building owners, which is evidenced by the fact that over 30% of the company’s sales come from maintenance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at

    Latosha Ellis Joins The National Black Lawyers Top 40 Under 40

    January 20, 2020 —
    Latosha M. Ellis, an associate in Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Coverage Practice, was recently named to The National Black Lawyers Top 40 Under 40 class of 2019. The professional honorary association recognizes attorneys under 40 from each state who demonstrate superior leadership, reputation, influence, stature and profile as a black lawyer. Selection is by invitation only following a multi-phase review process that includes peer nominations and third party research. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

    Hunton Insurance Team Wins Summary Judgment on Firm’s Own Hurricane Harvey Business Income Loss

    March 23, 2020 —
    A Texas judge has ruled that Hunton Andrews Kurth is entitled to coverage from Great Northern Insurance Co., a unit of Chubb, Ltd. (“Chubb”), for losses its predecessor firm suffered when Hurricane Harvey closed its Houston office and disrupted business in 2017. The court agreed with Hunton’s position that the policy, written specifically for a law firm, covered its business income loss until the firm’s operations were restored to their pre-loss levels. The court rejected in its entirety Chubb’s argument that coverage lasted only until the physical damage that closed the building had been repaired. Rather, siding with Hunton, the court found that the policy language affords, in addition to ordinary business income coverage during the damage period, “extended period” coverage that commences after the damaged property is repaired and after the firm’s operations resume. From August 27 to August 31, 2017, the firm was forced to close its Houston office due to flooding and damage caused by Hurricane Harvey. While employees were permitted to return to the office on August 31, income did not return to its pre-loss level until September 14, 2017. The firm submitted a claim to Chubb for the loss sustained from August 27 to September 14, but Chubb paid only for income loss suffered during the 3-day closure period, and refused to cover the loss suffered after the building reopened. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at Ms. Spatz may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

    November 12, 2019 —
    On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context. The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.” Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Admissibility of Expert Opinions in Insurance Bad Faith Trials

    November 04, 2019 —
    In 2010, Hansen Construction was sued for construction defects and was defended by three separate insurance carriers pursuant to various primary CGL insurance policies.[i] One of Hansen’s primary carriers, Maxum Indemnity Company, issued two primary policies, one from 2006-2007 and one from 2007-2008. Everest National Insurance Company issued a single excess liability policy for the 2007-2008 policy year, and which was to drop down and provide additional coverage should the 2007-2008 Maxum policy become exhausted. In November 2010, Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primarily policy but agreed to defend under the 2006-2007 primarily policy. When Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primary policy, Everest National Insurance denied under its excess liability policy. In 2016, pursuant to a settlement agreement between Hansen Construction and Maxum, Maxum retroactively reallocated funds it owed to Hansen Construction from the 2006-2007 Maxum primary policy to the 2007-2008 Maxum primary policy, which became exhausted by the payment. Thereafter, Hansen Construction demanded coverage from Everest National, which continued to deny the claim. Hansen Construction then sued Everest National for, among other things, bad faith breach of contract. In the bad faith action, both parties retained experts to testify at trial regarding insurance industry standards of care and whether Everest National’s conduct in handling Hansen Construction’s claim was reasonable. Both parties sought to strike the other’s expert testimony as improper and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at

    Australians Back U.S. Renewables While Opportunities at Home Ebb

    March 16, 2020 —
    Some of Australia’s biggest funds are pouring money into U.S. clean-energy projects as they butt up against a shortage of green opportunities at home. AustralianSuper, the country’s largest pension fund, recently joined Queensland Investment Corporation in a $1 billion funding round for Generate, a San Francisco-based green-finance company. And Construction and Building Unions Superannuation, another pension giant, made its first U.S. clean-power investments last year. The investments come as the wildfires that charred an area about the size of New York State have put increasing pressure on funds to do more to fight global warming. The problem, investors say, is the Australian government isn’t promoting clean-energy development, leaving the nation without enough sizable projects to back. “At this point the platforms of scale don’t exist in Australia,” said Nik Kemp, head of infrastructure at AustralianSuper. “The size of the U.S. market makes for a much larger market and much better long-term growth opportunities.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Natalia Kniazhevich & Matthew Burgess, Bloomberg

    Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State's Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements

    February 24, 2020 —
    On January 31, 2020, Judge Kimberly Mueller issued a preliminary injunction "in full" preventing the State of California from enforcing AB 51, the state's new law effectively banning mandatory employee arbitration agreements. As we previously reported, AB 51 adds section 432.6 to the Labor Code and section 12953 to the Government Code, which together prohibit employers from requiring an employee, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or receipt of employment-related benefits, to waive any right, forum, or procedure to pursue a claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or the Labor Code. In other words, AB 51 bans mandatory employment arbitration agreements for employment-related claims. In early December 2019, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of business organizations sued the state of California in federal court in a bid to have AB 51 declared preempted --- and therefore unenforceable --- by the Federal Arbitration Act. The case is Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Becerra, Case No. 2:19-cv-2456 KJM DB (E.D. Cal.). On December 30, 2019, Judge Mueller issued a temporary restraining order preventing the state from enforcing AB 51 pending the resolution of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. You can read our report here. Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys Amy R. Patton, Jeffrey K. Brown and Tyler B. Runge Ms. Patton may be contacted at Mr. Brown may be contacted at Mr. Runge may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    One Sector Is Building Strength Amid Slow Growth

    November 18, 2019 —
    If you had to guess which stocks are posting top gains given this year’s gloomy economic outlook, you might be surprised by the answer. Construction and material shares, despite most macro indicators pointing to slowing global growth, are now leading the pack in Europe. The sector’s up 32% already this year, knocking food-and-drinks stocks off the pedestal, and there appear few signs of the rally stopping anytime soon. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Msika, Bloomberg