BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut reconstruction 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


    Las Vegas, Back From the Bust, Revives Dead Projects

    EPA Issues Interpretive Statement on Application of NPDES Permit System to Releases of Pollutants to Groundwater

    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers Lists

    Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear

    Illinois Law Bars Coverage for Construction Defects in Insured's Work

    California Limits Indemnification Obligations of Design Professionals

    Colorado Senate Voted to Kill One of Three Construction Defect Bills

    Insurance Law Alert: Incorporation of Defective Work Does Not Result in Covered Property Damage in California Construction Claims

    FHFA’s Watt Says Debt Cuts Possible for Underwater Homeowners

    Haight Welcomes Robert S. Rucci

    The Overlooked Nevada Rule In an Arena Project Lawsuit

    Preserving your Rights to Secure Payment on Construction Projects (with Examples)

    Indiana Court Enforces Contract Provisions rather than Construction Drawing Markings

    Bank Sues over Defective Windows

    The Jersey Shore gets Beach Prisms Designed to Reduce Erosion

    Defective Sprinklers Not Cause of Library Flooding

    Lawyer Claims HOA Scam Mastermind Bribed Politicians

    Bid Protests: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Redeux)

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules that Insurance Salesman had No Fiduciary Duty to Policyholders

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

    Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives First Tier Ranking

    Investigation of Orange County Landslide

    Connecticut Federal District Court Again Finds "Collapse" Provisions Ambiguous

    White House Plan Would Break Up Corps Civil-Works Functions

    No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy

    Motion to Dismiss Insureds' Counterclaim on the Basis of Prior Knowledge Denied

    No Coverage Under Exclusions For Wind and Water Damage

    Client Alert: Service Via Tag Jurisdiction Insufficient to Subject Corporation to General Personal Jurisdiction

    Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences as Affirmative Defense

    Los Angeles Could Be Devastated by the Next Big Earthquake

    Florida Appellate Court Holds Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applicable Irrespective of Contractor Licensure

    Asbestos Client Alert: Court’s Exclusive Gatekeeper Role May not be Ignored or Shifted to a Jury

    No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations

    A General Contractors Guide to Bond Thresholds by State

    You Can Take This Job and Shove It!

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    A New Hope - You Now May Have Coverage for Punitive Damages in Connecticut

    Port Authority Reaches Deal on Silverstein 3 World Trade

    Mississippi exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolution Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

    Growing Optimism Among Home Builders

    US Secretary of Labor Withdraws Guidance Regarding Independent Contractors

    Designers George Yabu and Glenn Pushelberg Discuss One57’s Ultra-Luxury Park Hyatt

    Improper Classification Under Davis Bacon Can Be Costly

    Homebuilders Offer Hope for U.K. Economy

    Potential Problems with Cases Involving One Owner and Multiple Contractors

    The Sensible Resurgence of the Multigenerational Home

    Court of Appeals Discusses Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in Public Works Contracting
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT EXPERT WITNESS ENGINEER
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    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. 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

    Be Careful with Continuous Breach and Statute of Limitations

    January 21, 2019 —
    If you are a construction attorney like me (or anyone that takes cases to court), you deal with statutes of limitation on a daily basis. These statutes seem pretty simple. A party has “X” amount of time in which to file its lawsuit after accural of the cause of action. In a breach of contract suit, the accrual is the date of breach. Easy, right? Wrong, at least in some circumstances. Take for example, the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. PAE Applied Techs., LLC out of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this unpublished opinion the Court looked at “continuous breach” versus “series of separate breaches.” The basic facts are that in 2000 Flour entered into a contract with PAE whereby PAE requested and claims to have received consent from Flour to a 2.3% administrative cost cap on Flour’s work on an Air Force contract. Flour claimed that it did not agree to this cap. In 2002, Flour begain billing PAE for its costs plus the 2.3% administrative markup and billed in this fashion for the first full year. However, in subsequent years and for the next 11 years, Flour billed PAE at a higher markup rate than the 2.3%. PAE disputed the increased markup and paid Flour at the 2.3% rate. Flour periodically protested but made no move to court until it filed suit in March of 2016. After a bench trial, the district court found that Flour had agreed to the cap and found for PAE. 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

    Eleventh Circuit Rules That Insurer Must Defend Contractor Despite “Your Work” Exclusion, Where Damage Timing Unclear

    May 13, 2019 —
    The Eleventh Circuit has reversed an insurer’s award of summary judgment after finding that uncertainty about when the alleged property damage occurred raised questions about whether the damage came within the scope of the “Your Work” exclusion. More specifically, the court found unclear whether the damage occurred before or after the contractor abandoned the job, thereby triggering an exception to the “Your Work” exclusion for damage to work that had “not yet been completed or abandoned.” The decision illustrates how timing can be a critical factor when it comes to triggering coverage for work and completed operations. In Southern-Owners Insurance Company v. MAC Contractors of Florida, LLC, a pair of trustees hired MAC Contractors (doing business as KJIMS Construction) to serve as the general contractor for a custom residence. After construction began, disputes between the trustees and KJIMS caused the contractor to abandon the job before completing the project. The trustees followed with a lawsuit alleging, among other things, that KJIMS had damaged wood floors and a metal roof, which KJIMS had promised to remediate but never did. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and David Costello, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Costello may be contacted at dcostello@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Drones Give Inspectors a Closer Look at Bridges

    January 02, 2019 —
    Ted Zoli, national chief bridge engineer with HNTB, compares bridge inspections to taking his kids to the doctor. “Every few years you take another set of pictures of the bridge, and ultimately you can pattern it. You pay attention in a deeper way to responses, and have a record.” But like parents who don’t want to send kids to the doctor at the first sign of a sniffle, once managers understand the characteristics of a bridge and its behavior, they don’t need to do constant in-depth reinspections. They are constantly looking for ways to make better decisions with the data they already have. “We spend a lot of money inspecting bridges,” says Zoli. “The question becomes whether there is a more technologically efficient way to do it.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aileen Cho, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Supplement to New California Construction Laws for 2019

    January 08, 2019 —
    A representative of the Contractors State License Board would like to emphasize a benefit of SB 1042 not mentioned in the report below that Smith Currie published recently. Importantly, the new law allows the CSLB to work with licensees, resolve complaints informally, and avoid a full Administrative Procedure Act hearing brought by the California Attorney General’s office. If the CSLB and licensee are unable to resolve a citation informally, the licensee is still entitled to the APA hearing. Contractors receiving CSLB citations are wise to avail themselves of this process. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel F. McLennon, Smith Currie
    Mr. McLennon may be contacted at dfmclennon@smithcurrie.com

    Contractor Gets Green Light to Fix Two Fractured Girders at Salesforce Transit Center

    January 28, 2019 —
    The Transbay Joint Powers Authority announced Jan. 10 that procurement has begun for the repair of the two fractured bottom flanges of the twin parallel girders that span 80 ft across Fremont Street in the 4.5-block-long Salesforce Transit Center in San Francisco. TJPA shuttered the transit center on Sept. 25, less than six weeks after it had opened, after a ceiling installer noticed a crack in one of the bridgelike spans. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
    Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

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

    December 19, 2018 —
    Many in the construction industry and multi-family development field have been closely following Senate Bill 721, or the “Balcony Bill,” regarding new requirements for building owners associated with decks and balconies. After almost a dozen amendments, the “Balcony Bill” finally passed in the state legislature with an overwhelming majority and was signed into law September 17th, 2018, by Governor Jerry Brown. Balconies and decks, called “Exterior Elevated Elements” (“EEE”) in the statute, are common features in most multi-family buildings in California – where better to enjoy the California sun? However, many of the structures have proven to be problematic at best due to complex intersections of construction trades and design issues as well as limited understanding and effectuation of maintenance. Indeed, the “Balcony Bill” arose largely out of an outcry following the 2015 balcony collapse in Berkeley in 2015, which left six young people dead and another seven injured. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@grsm.com

    California Court of Appeal Holds That the Right to Repair Act Prohibits Class Actions Against Manufacturers of Products Completely Manufactured Offsite

    February 06, 2019 —
    In Kohler Co. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. App. 5th 55 (2018), the Second District of the Court of Appeal of California considered whether the lower court properly allowed homeowners to bring class action claims under the Right to Repair Act (the Act) against a manufacturer of a plumbing fixture for alleged defects in the product. After an extensive analysis of the language of the Act, the court found that class action claims under the Act are not allowed if the product was completely manufactured offsite. Since the subject fixture was completely manufactured offsite, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision. The court’s holding establishes that rights and remedies set forth in the Right to Repair Act are not available for class action claims alleging defects in products completely manufactured offsite. In Kohler Co., homeowners instituted a class action against Kohler, the manufacturer of water pressure and temperature regulating valves that were installed into their homes during original construction. The class action was filed on behalf of all owners of residential dwellings in California in which these Kohler valves were installed as part of original construction. The complaint asserted, among other claims, a cause of action under the Act. Kohler filed a motion for anti-class certification on the ground that causes of actions under the Act cannot be certified as a class action. The trial court denied the motion with respect to the Act but certified its ruling for appellate review. Kohler filed a petition with the Court of Appeals, arguing that certain sections of the Act explicitly exclude class action claims under the Act. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    “Bee” Careful: Unique Considerations When Negotiating a Bee Storage Lease Agreement

    March 27, 2019 —
    As demand for commercial bees used to pollinate crops (such as almond trees) has grown, so has the demand for facilities to store bees. Entering a lease agreement for the storage of live bees presents some unique issues the parties need to consider when negotiating the lease agreement. Don’t Bee Short-Sighted: Bees are often transported to different areas depending on the time of year, which means bees are not stored in the same facility all year. The lease agreement will often only provide for the storage of bees during the season when the bees are used for pollination in that particular area, but that does not mean the parties must limit the term of the lease agreement to a single season. The parties may consider entering into a lease agreement for multiple years that only applies during the pollination season each year. Bee Mindful of the Rent: Whereas the parties usually base rent in a typical commercial lease agreement off of the square footage of space the tenant uses in the premises, it often makes more sense for both parties negotiating a lease for the storage of bees to base the rent on the number of beehives or bee colony boxes stored at the facility. Basing the rent on the number of beehives or bee colony boxes provides the landlord with flexibility in storing the bees of multiple tenants in the same facility, and it can give the tenant flexibility with the number of bees it may need stored at the facility in any given season. With such a rental arrangement, a landlord should consider asking for a commitment from the tenant to deliver at least a certain number of beehives or colonies for storage, and the tenant should consider asking for a commitment from the landlord to reserve space in the facility for at least that same number of beehives or colonies as the tenant is giving a commitment for. Additionally, the parties will need to determine when rent will be paid. In a general commercial lease agreement, rent is usually paid monthly. With a bee storage lease agreement, however, a landlord may want to require the tenant to pay all of the rent for the season upon delivery of the bees, and the landlord may also want the tenant to pay a percentage of the rent to reserve space in the facility prior to delivery of the bees. This allows the landlord to get an early indication of what space in the facility it will have available in the facility for other tenants given the somewhat flexible rental arrangement of the parties. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Colton Addy, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Addy may be contacted at caddy@swlaw.com