• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking expert witness Fairfield Connecticut institutional building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut parking structure expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom homes expert witness Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut production housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominium expert witness Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut Medical building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut industrial building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut condominiums expert witness Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut tract home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut casino resort expert witness Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction expert witness Fairfield Connecticut office building expert witness Fairfield Connecticut custom home expert witness Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing expert witness Fairfield Connecticut
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Connecticut Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Fairfield Connecticut

    License required for electrical and plumbing trades. No state license for general contracting, however, must register with the State.

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Builders Association of Eastern Connecticut
    Local # 0740
    20 Hartford Rd Suite 18
    Salem, CT 06420

    Home Builders Association of New Haven Co
    Local # 0720
    2189 Silas Deane Highway
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Home Builders Association of Hartford Cty Inc
    Local # 0755
    2189 Silas Deane Hwy
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Home Builders & Remo Assn of Fairfield Co
    Local # 0780
    433 Meadow St
    Fairfield, CT 06824

    Home Builders Association of NW Connecticut
    Local # 0710
    110 Brook St
    Torrington, CT 06790

    Home Builders Association of Connecticut (State)
    Local # 0700
    3 Regency Dr Ste 204
    Bloomfield, CT 06002

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Fairfield Connecticut

    Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review Regarding Necessary Parties in Lien Foreclosure Actions

    When it Comes to Trials, it’s Like a Box of Chocolates. Sometimes You Get the Icky Cream Filled One

    Bad Faith Claim For Independent Contractor's Reduced Loss Assessment Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Faulty Workmanship may be an Occurrence in Indiana CGL Policies

    Partners Patti Santelle and Gale White honored by as "Top Women in Law" The Legal Intelligencer

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052: The “Transit-Oriented Development Claims Act of 2013.”

    How to Get Your Bedroom Into the Met Museum

    Ackman Group Pays $91.5 Million for Condo at NYC’s One57

    Tesla’s Solar Roof Pricing Is Cheap Enough to Catch Fire

    Is it the End of the Story for Redevelopment in California?

    Be Careful How You Terminate: Terminating for Convenience May Limit Your Future Rights

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at Faster Pace in January

    Spearin Doctrine: Alive, Well and Thriving on its 100th Birthday

    Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage

    Struggling Astaldi Announces Defaults on Florida Highway Contracts

    Florida trigger

    Sixth Circuit Rejects Claim for Reverse Bad Faith

    Useful Life: A Valuable Theory for Reducing Damages

    Depreciation of Labor in Calculating Actual Cash Value Against Public Policy

    Louisiana District Court Declines to Apply Total Pollution Exclusion

    Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered

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

    How Mushrooms Can Be Used To Make Particle Board Less Toxic

    No Third-Quarter Gain for Construction

    French President Vows to Rebuild Fire-Collapsed Notre Dame Roof and Iconic Spire

    Rise in Home Building Helps Other Job Sectors

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    New Plan Submitted for Explosive Demolition of Old Tappan Zee Bridge

    Six Reasons to Use Regular UAV Surveys on Every Construction Project

    Housing Prices Up through Most of Country

    Brazil World Cup Soccer Crisis Deepens With Eighth Worker Death

    Wes Payne Receives Defense Attorney of the Year Award

    9 Positive Housing Statistics by Builder

    WCC and BHA Raised Thousands for Children’s Cancer Research at 25th West Coast Casualty CD Seminar

    Bill Taylor Co-Authors Chapter in Pennsylvania Construction Law Book

    Experts Weigh In on Bilingual Best Practices for Jobsites

    Does Stricter Decertification Mean More “Leedigation?”

    Balcony Collapses Killing Six People

    Arizona Court of Appeals Upholds Judgment on behalf of Homeowners against Del Webb Communities for Homes Riddled with Construction Defects

    Florida extends the Distressed Condominium Relief Act

    Effectively Managing Project Closeout: It Ends Where It Begins

    Blue-Sky Floods Take a Rising Toll for Businesses

    A Vision and Strategy for the Adoption of Open International Standards

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

    Tennessee High Court Excludes Labor Costs from Insurer’s Actual Cash Value Depreciation Calculations

    Class Actions Under California’s Right to Repair Act. Nope. Well . . . Nope.

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, Texas

    Economy in U.S. Picked Up on Consumer Spending, Construction

    No Coverage Under Exclusions For Wind and Water Damage

    Breach of a Construction Contract & An Equitable Remedy?
    Corporate Profile


    With over four thousand general contracting and design related expert designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Construction Expert Directory delivers a streamlined multi-disciplinary expert retention and support solution to construction claims professionals concerned with construction defect and claims litigation. BHA provides construction claims investigation and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction practice groups, Fortune 500 builders, CGL carriers, owners, as well as a variety of public entities. Employing in house assets which include registered architects, professional engineers, licensed general and specialty contractors, the firm brings national experience and local capabilities to Fairfield and the surrounding areas.

    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Where There's Smoke...California's New Emergency Wildfire Smoke Protection Regulation And What Employers Are Required To Do

    August 26, 2019 —
    California employers need to pay heed to the recently announced California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Cal/OSHA) emergency regulation related to their duty to protect employees from the potential harm caused by wildfire smoke. As of July 29, 2019, employers are required to actively monitor their local Air Quality Index (AQI) and take steps to protect their employees from the harmful particulate matter contained within wildfire smoke. Which Workplaces Are Impacted? The regulation applies to all workplaces exposed to wildfire smoke with an AQI level of 151 or greater (ranging from "unhealthy" to "hazardous"). "Exposed" workplaces are those that are not in enclosed buildings, structures, or vehicles with mechanical ventilation and the ability to close all windows and doors. Outdoor occupations including construction, agriculture, landscaping, maintenance, commercial delivery, and others that expose the worker to the outside air for more than one hour will be the most impacted by this new regulation, although firefighters engaged in fighting wildfires are expressly exempt from the statute. What If I Have A Potentially Exposed Workplace? Employers with outdoor workplaces that are exposed to wildfire smoke are required to monitor the AQI before each shift, and "periodically throughout the day," all to ensure that the Air Quality Index for PM2.5 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or smaller) remains below 151. This can be done by visiting certain governmental websites, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's AirNow website (, which allow for regular email alerts to be issued to the employer. An employer with a potentially exposed workplace must also set up a communication system capable of communicating to all affected employees (in a language readily understood) the status of wildfire smoke hazards. The communication system must also provide the employees a process to inform the employer of worsening air quality and/or any adverse symptoms that they may be experiencing (e.g., asthma or chest pain). Finally, employers are required to add to their Injury and Illness Protection Program (IIPP) the provision of effective training and instruction (i.e., approximately 15 minutes) regarding:
    1. the health effects of wildfire smoke;
    2. the right to obtain medical treatment without fear of reprisal;
    3. how employees can obtain the current AQI for PM2.5;
    4. the requirements of this regulation;
    5. the employer's communication system regarding wildfire smoke;
    6. the employer's methods for protecting employees from wildfire smoke;
    7. the importance, limitations, and benefits of using a respirator when exposed to wildfire smoke; and
    8. the proper use and maintenance of respirators.
    The Required Provision of Respiratory Protective Equipment Employers with exposed workplaces are required to provide effective NIOSH-approved respirators (e.g., N95 filtering facepiece respirators) when AQI for PM2.5 levels are 151-200 (unhealthy), 201-300 (very unhealthy), or 301-500 (hazardous). The N95 respirator typically costs less than a dollar per mask and can be easily purchased online. Employers are also required to clean, store, and maintain these respirators for times of need. Employees are free to decide whether to use a respirator when the AQI for PM2.5 level is between 151-500, although employers must be prepared to offer the equipment at an AQI level of 151 or higher. Use of the respirator by an employee exposed to an AQI for PM2.5 level that exceeds 500, however, is required by law. What Should Potentially Exposed Employers Do Now? Employers should immediately begin supplementing their IIPP platforms to include this regulation's prescribed training regarding wildfire smoke. Companies should also develop an adequate monitoring and communication plan regarding wildfire smoke hazards and effectively train their supervisors on the same. Finally, acquiring an adequate supply of N95 filtering respirators now will help ensure that employers are prepared for the next wildfire. Michael Studenka is a partner in Newmeyer Dillion's Labor & Employment practice group. His practice focuses on the life cycle of Employment law. Mike advises and trains companies on proactive measures to keep them protected and in compliance, and leverages his significant trial experience when faced with litigation. You can reach out to him at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Premises Liability: Everything You Need to Know

    September 09, 2019 —
    Premises liability is a relatively simple concept: landowners, lessors, and occupiers of land must keep their property safe and avoid causing harm to others. Premises liability lawsuits can arise from an array of circumstances including a slip and fall by an individual, a construction site accident, or an accident at occurs on a residential or commercial property. Under California law, everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property. California Civil Code 1714 (a). When an individual is injured on a property, the person harmed generally brings a lawsuit based upon a theory of negligence. Under this theory, an injured Plaintiff must prove the following:
    1. The defendant owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property;
    2. The defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property;
    3. The plaintiff was harmed; and
    4. The defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.
    California Civil Jury Instructions 1000. When evaluating a negligence claim under the theory of premises liability, there are several key elements for both a Plaintiff and a Defendant to consider. First, the landowner, occupier, or lessor of a premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the use or maintenance of the premises to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968). Essentially, a landowner or occupier is required to take steps to keep individuals on the property free from harm. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Based Upon Exclusion for Contractual Assumption of Liability

    August 06, 2019 —
    The Supreme Court for West Virginia determined the policy's contractual assumption exclusion barred coverage for the general contractor based upon claims of faulty workmanship. J.A. St & Assocs. v. Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp., 2019 W. Va. LEXIS 205 (May 1, 2019). J.A. Street & Associates, Inc. entered a contract with the developer, Thundering Herd Development, L.L.C., to build a commercial shopping center on seventy-eight acres of land. Street agreed to oversee the site preparation for the development and the construction of many of the buildings. Thundering Herd retained an engineering firm, S&ME, Inc. to do geotechnical exploration and to provide advice regarding land preparation for the shopping center. Thundering Heard also entered an agreement with the Target Corporation to construct a store on a pad to be prepared at the shopping center. Street hired subcontractors to prepare the site by grading the land and installing fill material. A slope was constructed at the rear of the proposed Target site, but it failed, causing a landslide, damage to the pad, and damage to adjacent property owned by a third party. Thundering Heard incurred $721,875 in additional costs to repair this slope, reconstruct the Target site, and compensate the neighbor for the damage to the adjacent property. 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

    Privileged Communications With a Testifying Client/Expert

    June 10, 2019 —
    In In re City of Dickinson, 568 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. 2019), the Supreme Court of Texas recently assessed whether a client’s emails with its counsel were subject to disclosure after the client was designated as a testifying expert witness. In re City of Dickinson involved a coverage dispute between a policyholder and its insurer. The policyholder moved for summary judgment on the issue of causation, essentially alleging that its insurer did not pay all damages caused by Hurricane Ike. In responding to the motion, the insurer relied upon an affidavit by one of its employees, a claims examiner, that included both factual testimony and expert witness testimony. The policyholder subsequently filed a motion to compel, seeking the production of emails between the claims examiner and the insurer’s counsel that were generated while the affidavit was being drafted. The emails contained numerous revisions of the affidavit. The insurer objected, asserting that the emails were protected by the attorney-client privilege and were generated in the course of the rendition of legal services. The trial court granted the motion to compel, ordering production. Ultimately, after a series of appeals, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the documents in dispute were subject to discovery. In resolving this issue, the court examined the rules pertaining to expert disclosures. As noted by the court, the rules authorize the production of all documents provided to a testifying expert witness. Thus, the court was faced with determining if its rules required the disclosure of documents that are also subject to the attorney-client privilege. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams
    Ms. Warren may be contacted at

    Lump Sum Subcontract? Perhaps Not.

    August 20, 2019 —
    Lump sum subcontract? Perhaps not due to a recent ruling where the trial court said “No!” based on the language in the subcontract and contract documents generally incorporated into the subcontract. This is a ruling on an interpretation of a subcontract and contract documents incorporated into the subcontract that I do not agree with and struggle to fully comprehend. The issue was whether the subcontract amount was a lump sum or subject to an audit, adjustment, and definitization based on actual costs incurred. Of course, the subcontractor (or any person in any business) is not just interested in recouping actual costs, but there needs to be a margin to cover profit and home office overhead that does not get factored into field general conditions. In United States v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, 2018 WL 6571234 (M.D.Fla. 2018), a prime contractor was hired to perform work on a federal project. During the work, the Government issued the prime contractor a Modification that had a not-to-exceed value and required the prime contractor to track its costs for this Modification separate from other contract costs. In other words, based on this Modification, the prime contractor was paid its costs up to a maximum amount and the prime contractor would separately cost-code and track the costs for this work differently than other work it was performing under the prime contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    David A. Frenznick Awarded Multiple Accolades in the 2020 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America

    September 23, 2019 —
    Wilke Fleury congratulates attorney David A. Frenznick on his inclusion in the 26th Edition of The Best Lawyers in America© for his work in: Litigation – Real Estate! In addition, David was also acknowledged as a 2020 “Lawyer of the Year” award recipient. He received this accolade for his work in Litigation – Real Estate in Sacramento. Only a single lawyer in each practice area and community is honored with a “Lawyer of the Year” award. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. Almost 94,000 industry leading lawyers are eligible to vote (from around the world), and have received over 11 million evaluations on the legal abilities of other lawyers based on their specific practice areas around the world. For the 2020 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America©, 8.3 million votes were analyzed, which resulted in more than 62,000 leading lawyers being included in the new edition. Lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed; therefore inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a singular honor. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David A. Frenznick, Wilke Fleury
    Mr. Frenznick may be contacted at

    The Living Makes Buildings Better with Computational Design

    November 12, 2019 —
    The AEC industry has a responsibility and mandate when it comes to addressing significant global challenges in the sector and improving operational practice. Professionals such as Lorenzo Villaggi, Senior Research Scientist at The Living, believe that new design technologies hold the key to better-performing built environments. “Although I’m trained as an architect, I’ve always had an interest in how technology can interact with and have an impact on design processes,” says Lorenzo. “I’ve developed a familiarity with advanced computational tools and eventually developed my own.” These computational tools are primarily designed to assist with the generation of design options and improve performance analysis. They range from small systems that help users design faster, all the way to elaborate software that can perform complex, mission-critical tasks. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds that Subrogation Waiver Does Not Violate Statute Prohibiting Limitation on Tort Liability in Construction Contracts

    October 21, 2019 —
    In Rural Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lester Bldgs., LLC 2019 WI 70, 2019 Wisc. LEXIS 272, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin considered whether a subrogation waiver clause in a construction contract between the defendant and the plaintiff’s insured violated Wisconsin statute § 895.447, which prohibits limitations of tort liability in construction contracts. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision that the waiver clause did not violate the statute because it merely shifted the responsibility for the payment of damages to the defendant’s insurance company. The waiver clause did not limit or eliminate the defendant’s tort liability. This case establishes that while § 895.447 prohibits construction contracts from limiting tort liability, a subrogation waiver clause that merely shifts responsibility for the payment of damages from a tortfeasor to an insurer does not violate the statute and, thus, is enforceable. In Rural Mutual, the plaintiff’s insured, Jim Herman, Inc. (Herman), entered into a contract with Lester Buildings, LLC (Lester) to design and construct a barn on Herman’s property. The contract included a provision that stated the following: Both parties waive all rights against each other and any of their respective contractors, subcontractors and suppliers of any tier and any design professional engaged with respect to the Project, for recovery of any damages caused by casualty of other perils to the extent covered by property insurance applicable to the Work or the Project, except such rights as they have to the proceeds of such property insurance and to the extent necessary to recover amounts relating to deductibles of self-insured retentions applicable to insured losses. . . . This waiver of subrogation shall be effective notwithstanding allegations of fault, negligence, or indemnity obligation of any party seeking the benefit or production [sic] of such waiver. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at