BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut retail construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expert
    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


    The Private Works: Preliminary Notice | Are You Using the Correct Form?

    Oregon Court of Appeals Rules That Negligent Construction (Construction Defect) Claims Are Subject to a Two-Year Statute of Limitations

    New Jersey Supreme Court Rules that Subcontractor Work with Resultant Damage is both an “Occurrence” and “Property Damage” under a Standard Form CGL Policy

    Illinois Town’s Bond Sale Halted Over Fraudulent Hotel Deals

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project

    eRent: Construction Efficiency Using Principles of the Sharing Economy

    FEMA Offers to Review Hurricane Sandy Claims

    CA Senate Report States Caltrans ‘Gagged and Banished’ its Critics

    No Retrofit without Repurposing in Los Angeles

    Contractors: Consult Your Insurance Broker Regarding Your CGL Policy

    Court Finds That SIR Requirements are Not Incorporated into High Level Excess Policies and That Excess Insurers’ Payment of Defense Costs is Not Conditioned on Actual Liability

    Rattlesnake Bite Triggers Potential Liability for Walmart

    Old Case Teaches New Tricks

    California’s Right To Repair Act Is The Sole Remedy For Damages For Construction Defects In New Residential Construction

    Nevada Court Adopts Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims

    Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

    Lakewood Introduced City Ordinance to Battle Colorado’s CD Law

    As Recovery Continues, Home Improvement Stores Make Sales

    Alabama Appeals Court Rules Unexpected and Unintended Property Damage is an Occurrence

    School Board Sues Multiple Firms over Site Excavation Problem

    Foundation Differences Across the U.S.

    California Enacts New Claims Resolution Process for Public Works Projects

    Future Environmental Rulemaking Proceedings Listed in the Spring 2019 Unified Federal Agenda

    One Word Makes All The Difference – The Distinction Between “Pay If Paid” and “Pay When Paid” Clauses

    Potential Pitfalls Under the Contract Disputes Act for Federal Government Contractors

    5 Impressive Construction Projects in North Carolina

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    Caterpillar Forecast Tops Estimates as Construction Recovers

    A Bill for an Act Concerning Workers’ Compensation – 2014 Edition

    Anti-Concurrent, Anti-Sequential Causation Clause Precludes Coverage

    Construction Law Alert: A Specialty License May Not Be Required If Work Covered By Another License

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

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Motion for Remand

    Green Home Predictions That Are Best Poised to Come True in 2014 and Beyond (guest post)

    A Few Green Building Notes

    Court Calls Lease-Leaseback Project What it is: A Design-Bid-Build Project

    DEP Plan to Deal with Noxious Landfill Fumes Met with Criticism

    Insurer Obligated to Cover Preventative Remediation of Construction Defects

    Agrihoods: The Best of Both Worlds

    Quick Note: Mitigation of Damages in Contract Cases

    Plaintiffs’ Claims in Barry v. Weyerhaeuser Company are Likely to Proceed after Initial Hurdle

    New York Condominium Association Files Construction Defect Suit

    Repairs Commencing on Defect-Ridden House from Failed State Supreme Court Case

    Federal Public Works Construction Collection Remedies: The Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    California Beach Hotel to Get $185 Million Luxury Rebuild

    Water Seepage, Ensuing Mold Damage Covered by Homeowner's Policy

    No Friday Night Lights at $60 Million Texas Stadium: Muni Credit

    NYPD Investigating Two White Flags on Brooklyn Bridge
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT EXPERT WITNESS ENGINEER
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 5500 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

    Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?

    August 06, 2019 —
    The “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Non-Responsibility will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien. The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property. The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Florida Adopts Daubert Standard for Expert Testimony

    October 07, 2019 —
    Seven months ago, the Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt Daubert as the standard for admitting expert testimony in Florida state courts. In DeLisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219 (2018), the court reaffirmed that “Frye, not Daubert, is the appropriate test in Florida.” On May 23, 2019, however, Florida’s high court did an about-face. In In Re: Amendment to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC19-107, the Florida Supreme Court overruled its decision in DeLisle and declared that Florida will now apply the Daubert standard to determine whether scientific evidence is admissible. The Daubert standard comes from the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which held that the longstanding Frye test[1] for admitting expert testimony was superseded by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Daubert instructed that federal judges should act as “gatekeepers” to ensure expert testimony is rooted in scientifically valid principles and that those principles are properly applied to the facts at issue. In determining whether scientific evidence should be admitted, Daubert sets forth several factors to consider: the testability of the theory or technique; the peer review and publication of the theory or technique; the error rate for the technique; the standards controlling the technique’s operation; and the general acceptance of the theory or technique.[2] The Daubert standard is generally considered a more onerous test than Frye, precluding expert testimony that might otherwise go to the jury under Frye.[3] Whereas Frye is a single factor test that applies only to new or novel science, Daubert is a multifactor test that applies to all expert testimony. Since Daubert, a growing number of states have moved away from the Frye test in favor of the Daubert standard; it is now followed by a majority of jurisdictions in the country. In 2013, the Florida State legislature attempted to move Florida in this direction by amending the Florida Evidence Code to codify the Daubert standard. But because the Florida Supreme Court is vested with the power to make procedural rules and it was unclear whether the Daubert standard was a procedural or substantive rule, it was uncertain whether the 2013 Daubert amendments were controlling law. Then in 2017, in In Re: Amendment to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC16-181, the Florida Supreme Court expressly declined adopting the Daubert amendments to the extent they were procedural. This decision signaled that, if faced with the Daubert standard on appeal from a litigated case, the Florida Supreme Court would reaffirm that Frye – not Daubert – controlled the admissibility of expert testimony in Florida state courts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Highlighted | 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers

    September 16, 2019 —
    Wilke Fleury is proud to announce that 14 of our astounding attorneys were featured in the Annual List of Top Attorneys in the 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers magazine. Super Lawyers rates attorneys in each state using a patented selection process; they also publish a yearly magazine issue that regularly produces award-winning features on selected attorneys. Reprinted courtesy of Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, LLP Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Four Dead After Crane Collapses at Google’s Seattle Campus

    July 29, 2019 —
    Seattle (AP) -- Four people died and three were injured when a construction crane on the new Google Seattle campus collapsed Saturday, pinning six cars underneath. One female and three males were dead by the time firefighters got to the scene, Fire Chief Harold Scoggins said. Two of the dead were ironworkers, not crane operators, as had been previously stated, and the two others were people who had been in cars, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan said Saturday night. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    When an Insurer Proceeds as Subrogee, Defendants Cannot Assert Contribution Claims Against the Insured

    July 15, 2019 —
    In Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. of Mason County v. Stove Builder Int’l, 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 46993 (E.D. Ky.), the United States District Court for the Northern Division of the Eastern District of Kentucky, by adopting a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendations, see Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stove Builder, Int’l, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48103 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 11, 2019), considered whether to allow the defendants to file a third-party complaint against the plaintiff’s insureds-subrogors. Finding that the defendants could not pursue contribution claims against the plaintiff’s insureds-subrogors, the court denied the defendant’s motion to file a third-party complaint. The underlying subrogation action involved allegations of strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty against a pellet heater manufacturer and the retailer who sold the heater. The claims arose from a fire allegedly originating from the heater, which spread to the insureds-subrogors’ home causing property damage, along with consequential damages. Pursuant to the applicable insurance policy, the insureds-subrogors’ insurer issued payments to its insureds-subrogors. Thereafter, the insurer filed suit against the heater manufacturer and retailer. The defendants filed a motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against the plaintiff’s insureds-subrogors, seeking to assert a contribution claim. The defendants alleged that the insureds-subrogors failed to properly install and maintain the pellet heater. The defendants also sought a jury instruction that would permit the jury to apportion fault to the insureds-subrogors, resulting in a reduction of the plaintiff’s recovery. The court looked to federal procedural law, but Kentucky substantive law to decide the defendants’ motion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams
    Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com

    Bid Bonds: The First Preventative Measure for Your Project

    September 03, 2019 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday, Construction Law Musings welcomes Danielle Rodabaugh. Danielle is a principal for Surety Bonds.com, an agency that issues surety bonds to individuals and businesses across the nation. She writes articles to clarify bonding rules and regulations for those who have a stake in the surety bond industry–from contractors to telemarketers, and every professional in between. In construction we often value performance and payment bonds when considering how to protect the financial investments put into a project. We do so because these bonds provide a legal financial guarantee that the selected contractor will fulfill the contract. However, a third, equally protective kind of construction bond is often overlooked. Before an official contract has been agreed to and successfully executed, bid bonds guarantee that the selected low-bidder will officially enter into the contract at a later date. Bidders must submit a bid bond with their bid. Without doing so, the bidder becomes non-responsive–or an invalid candidate. Sometimes we overlook the benefits provided by this kind of Virginia surety bond, and yet they frequently act as the only legal protection for a project prior to groundbreaking. 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

    Arizona Purchaser Dwelling Actions Are Subject to a New Construction

    September 04, 2019 —
    Arizona recently amended its Purchaser Dwelling Action statute to, among other things, involve all contractors in the process, establish the parties’ burdens of proof, add an attorney fees provision, establish procedural requirements and limit a subcontractor’s indemnity exposure. The governor signed the bill—2019 Ariz. SB 1271—on April 10, 2019, and the changes go into effect and apply, retroactively “to from and after June 30, 2019.” The following discussion details some of the changes to the law. Notice to Contractors and Proportional Liability Under the revised law, a “Seller” who receives notice of a Purchaser Dwelling Action (PDA) from a residential dwelling purchaser pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1363* has to promptly forward the notice to all construction professionals—i.e. architects, contractors, subcontractors, etc., as defined in A.R.S. § 12-1361(5)—that the Seller reasonably believes are responsible for an alleged construction defect. A.R.S. § 12-1363(A). Sellers can deliver the notice by electronic means. Once construction professionals are placed on notice, they have the same right to inspect, test and repair the property as the Seller originally placed on notice. A.R.S. § 12-1362(B), (C). To the extent that the matter ultimately goes to suit, A.R.S. § 12-1632(D) dictates that, subject to Arizona Rules of Court, construction professionals “shall be joined as third-party defendants.” To establish liability, the purchaser has the burden of proving the existence of a construction defect and the amount of damages. Thereafter, the trier of fact determines each defendant’s or third-party defendant’s relative degree of fault and allocates the pro rata share of liability to each based on their relative degree of fault. However, the seller, not the purchaser, has the burden of proving the pro rata share of liability for any third-party defendant. A.R.S. § 12-1632(D). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Chicago Makes First Major Update to City's Building Code in 70 Years

    August 06, 2019 —
    The City Council recently voted to adopt a major update to the Chicago Building Code, its first in 70 years, that will better align it with the International Code Council’s International Building Code. Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) said the new code will spur and enhance building projects by adding more flexibility and options for construction materials. Engineering News-Record Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of