BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failure
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Connecticut Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Fairfield Connecticut

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


    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders & Remo Assn of Fairfield Co
    Local # 0780
    433 Meadow St
    Fairfield, CT 06824

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Eastern Connecticut
    Local # 0740
    20 Hartford Rd Suite 18
    Salem, CT 06420

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10


    Building Expert News and Information
    For Fairfield Connecticut


    Industry News: New Partner at Burdman Law Group

    More Reminders that the Specific Contract Terms Matter

    Lewis Brisbois Promotes 35 to Partnership

    Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

    DEP Plan to Deal with Noxious Landfill Fumes Met with Criticism

    Rich NYC Suburbs Fight Housing Plan They Say Will ‘Destroy’ Them

    SunCal Buys Oak Knoll Development for the Second Time

    Illinois Legislature Enables Pre-Judgment Interest in Personal Injury Cases

    Luxury Homes Push City’s Building Permits Past $7.5 Million

    Federal Court Reiterates Broad Duty to Defend in Additional Insured Cases

    Julie Firestone & Francois Ecclesiaste Recognized as 2023 MSBA North Star Lawyers

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Honors Four Partners as ‘Lawyers of the Year’

    Denver Court Rules that Condo Owners Must Follow Arbitration Agreement

    Injured Subcontractor Employee Asserts Premise Liability Claim Against General Contractor

    How the Election Could Affect the Housing Industry: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    Up in Smoke - 5th Circuit Finds No Coverage for Hydrochloric Acid Spill Based on Pollution Exclusion

    Department Of Labor Recovers $724K In Back Wages, Damages For 255 Workers After Phoenix Contractor Denied Overtime Pay, Falsified Records

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Fell in February to Five-Month Low

    In South Carolina, Insurer's Denial of Liability Does Not Waive Attorney-Client Privilege for Bad Faith Claim

    Pennsylvania Reconstruction Project Beset by Problems

    Engineer TRC Fends Off Lawsuits After Merger

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/04/23) – NFL Star Gets into Real Estate, DOJ Focuses on “Buyer-Broker Commissions”, and the Auto Workers’ Strike Continues

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Burks Smith and Katie Keller Win Daubert Motion Excluding Plaintiff’s Expert’s Testimony in the Middle District of Florida

    Contract’s Definition of “Substantial Completion” Does Not Apply to Third Party for Purposes of SOL, Holds Court of Appeal

    Cuba: Construction Boom Potential for U.S. Construction Companies and Equipment Manufacturers?

    Intentionally Set Atlanta Interstate Fire Closes Artery Until June

    Development in CBF Green Building Case in Maryland

    Canada Housing Starts Increase on Multiple-Unit Projects

    Traub Lieberman Partner Michael K. Kiernan and Associate Brandon Christian Obtain Dismissal with Prejudice in Favor of Defendant

    Traub Lieberman Partner Rina Clemens Selected as a 2023 Florida Super Lawyers® Rising Star

    Colorado Court of Appeals’ Ruling Highlights Dangers of Excessive Public Works Claims

    Is the Event You Are Claiming as Unforeseeable Delay Really Unforeseeable?

    Mind Over Matter: Court Finds Expert Opinion Based on NFPA 921 Reliable Despite Absence of Physical Testing

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (09/06/23) – Nonprofit Helping Marginalized Groups, Life Sciences Taking over Office Space, and Housing Affordability Hits New Low

    The Economic Loss Rule: From Where Does the Duty Arise?

    Charges in Kansas Water Park Death

    Housing Starts in U.S. Drop to Lowest Level in Three Months

    Inability to Confirm Coverage Supports Setting Aside Insured’s Default Judgment on Grounds of Extrinsic Mistake

    One Shot to Get It Right: Navigating the COVID-19 Vaccine in the Workplace

    Florida Enacts Property Insurance Overhaul for Benefit of Policyholders

    Vinny Testaverde Alleges $5 Million Mansion Riddled with Defects

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Indeed, You Just Design ‘Em”

    Beverly Hills Voters Reject Plan for Enclave's Tallest Building

    A Look Back at the Ollies

    Insurer Obligated to Cover Preventative Remediation of Construction Defects

    Additional Insured Coverage Confirmed

    CFTC Establishes Climate-Risk Unit, Echoing Other Biden Administration Agency Themes

    LEEDigation: A Different Take

    Dallas Condo Project to Expand
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert 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.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    A General Contractor’s Guide to Additional Insured Coverage

    August 10, 2017 —
    LAW360.com recently surveyed attorneys to offer tips for what general contractors should – and shouldn’t – do when pursuing additional insured coverage. According to the article, “With the broad array of risks present on a typical construction site, one of a general contractor’s top options to shield itself from liability for property damage and bodily injury claims is to secure expansive “additional insured” coverage through its subcontractors.” In the piece, Greg Podolak discussed techniques for avoiding potential gaps in coverage: “Carriers will try to say in the additional insured endorsement that they will only be responsible to provide limits for what is required in the trade contract,” said Greg Podolak, managing partner of Saxe Doernberger & Vita PC’s southeast office. “If it turns out the trade contract requires lower limits than the policy, the insurer will likely say it only wants to be responsible for those lower limits.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com

    Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes Six Partners and Three Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    June 19, 2023 —
    New York, N.Y. (June 6, 2023) – Six Lewis Brisbois partners and three Lewis Brisbois practices were recently ranked by Chambers in its 2023 USA rankings list. Kansas City & Wichita Managing Partner Alan L. Rupe and Phoenix Managing Partner Carl F. Mariano were both ranked Band 1 for “Labor & Employment – Kansas” and “Insurance – Arizona,” respectively. Phoenix Partner Gina M. Bartoszek was ranked Band 2 for “Insurance – Arizona.” Washington, D.C. Managing Partner Jane C. Luxton and Minneapolis Partner Tina A. Syring were both ranked Band 4 for “Environment – District of Columbia” and “Labor & Employment – Minnesota,” respectively. Additionally, Washington, D.C. & Fort Lauderdale Partner J. Mario Fontes, Jr. was ranked Band 5 for “Corporate/M&A & Private Equity – Florida: South.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    The Multigenerational Housing Trend

    May 02, 2014 —
    Reuters reported that “[m]ore than 50 million Americans already live in multigenerational situations, according to Pew Research, and the number is expected to grow as baby boomers age.” Lennar Corp has “Next Gen” home models, which provides multigenerational housing for prices similar to traditional homes. For instance, according to Reuters, one of the Next Gen models contains “an 800-square-foot house-within-a-house” with “a separate entrance and its own patio, plus a bedroom, sitting area, and bathroom.” Other home builders are also providing multigenerational housing: “Gertz Fine Homes, which builds between 12-30 houses a year near Portland, Oregon, says about 30 percent of sales are now multigenerational models, which can cost around $600,000.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Were Condos a Bad Idea?

    June 13, 2022 —
    Introduction Condominiums are a nice idea, but their execution has been less than perfect. Long before the fatal Berkeley, California balcony failure in 2015 or the 2021 Champlain Towers South collapse that killed 98 people in Surfside, Florida, we suspected that all was not right with the basic condo concept. Years ago, there were already signs this "cooperative" housing model was anything but. Whether due to owner apathy, internal disputes, or failure to fund future repairs, sustaining these projects for the long-term has been difficult, leaving their future in doubt. Can this be fixed, or is the concept inherently flawed? Every enterprise has an organizational "model" to run the business. For-profit corporations obtain revenue from the sale of products or services. The revenue of non-profit condominium corporations are the assessments paid by the owners of the individual units. While these assessments are “mandatory” in the sense they must be paid, they are also “voluntary” since the amount is left to the board of directors to determine. Condos are cheaper to buy, but the sales price may not reflect the real cost of ownership. They are "cooperative" because costs and space are shared, but internal disputes and funding shortfalls operate to shorten the life of these buildings in ways few owners understand. Internal Disputes Why is condominium life frequently not “cooperative?” Disputes. Disputes between condominium owners and their associations; among board members; and between individual owners and their neighbors. There are arguments over the right to put a flag on the balcony. There are arguments over swimming pool hours. The right to paint their front door some color other than everyone else's. The right to be free of noise, smoke, or view-blocking plants. And sometimes, the claimed right not to pay assessments needed to maintain the project—all notwithstanding the governing documents to the contrary. The right to use one's property as the owner sees fit is a concept imported from the single-family home experience but not replicated in condominiums where common ownership requires rules to avoid chaos. But a condominium association's most important concern should not be the color of someone's front door or when they can swim but sustaining the building and keeping owners safe. Maybe we care someone has painted their front door bright green, but should that concern have priority over finding rot that may cause a balcony to collapse with someone on it? Resolving conflicts and enforcing the governing documents have a reasonable success rate. Still, the effort required to do that often distracts the board from more critical issues—damage that can sink the ship. Directors can waste a lot of time re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic when, if they look closely, the iceberg is coming. Maintenance Lacks Priority Why can't we enforce the rules and do what’s necessary to sustain the building and keep occupants safe? Unfortunately, juggling both behavioral and sustainability issues has proven difficult for many volunteer boards of directors. Rule disputes are always in their face, crowding their agenda, while the damage that could lead to structural failure often remains unknown. Also, enforcing—or resisting—rules can involve a clash of egos that keep those matters front and center. Or, and I suspect this is a primary culprit, the cost of adequate inspections, maintenance, and repair is so high that boards cannot overcome owner resistance to that expense. While boards and management must sustain the project and protect people, raising the funds to do that is another matter. Directors must leap hurdles to increase regular assessments. Imposing large, unexpected, special assessments for major repairs can be political suicide. Unfortunately, few owners realize how deadly serious proper maintenance is until there is a Berkeley or a Surfside, and everyone is stunned by the loss of life and property. While those are extreme cases of faulty construction, inadequate maintenance, natural causes, or all the above, they will not be the last. We know that because experts have seen precursors to those same conditions in other projects. Our concern for sustainability arises from examining newer projects during construction defect litigation when forensic experts open walls to inspect waterproofing and structural components. It also comes from helping our clients with the re-construction of older buildings and dealing with many years or decades of neglect for which little or no reserves have been allocated. The economic impact of repairing long-term damage is huge. Rot lying hidden within walls slowly damages the structural framing. Moisture seeping into balcony supports weakens them sometimes to the point of collapse. The cost to repair this damage is frequently out of reach of most condominium associations. In newer projects, when experts find problems early, claims are possible. The Berkeley balcony failure occurred in an eight-year-old building[1], and there was recourse available from the builder. But with older projects, it is often difficult to hold anyone responsible other than the owners themselves. Is The Condo Model Flawed? Suppose this is true—and our experience representing condominium projects for over forty years tells us it is—then we are not dealing only with the inexperience of some volunteer directors but rather with a flawed organization model. Board members want to succeed but are constrained by an income stream that depends almost entirely on the will of the individual owners—essentially voluntary funding. Under most state laws, funding for condominium operations and maintenance is not mandatory[2], and relies instead on the willingness of the directors to assess owners for whatever is needed, and on the willingness of owners to accept the board’s decisions. When a board of directors can set assessments at whatever level is politically comfortable, without adequate consideration, or even knowledge, of long-term maintenance needs, systemic underfunding can result[3]. What the members want are the lowest assessments possible, and directors often accede to those demands. When these factors conspire to underfund maintenance, they will drastically shorten the service life of a building. They also make it potentially unsafe. Commercial buildings incentivize their owners for good maintenance with increased rents and market value. That incentive is not relevant to a condominium owner because the accumulating deficit is rarely understood at the time of sale and not reflected in the unit’s sales price. With a single-family home, deferred maintenance is more easily identified and is reflected in the purchase price. But condo home inspections are usually confined to the interior of a unit, and do not assess the overall condition of the entire building or project or review any deficit in the funding needed to attend to deficiencies. Thus, market value is not affected by reality. In most states that require that reserves be maintained for future maintenance and repairs, the statutes require nothing other than cursory surface inspections. Damage beneath the skin of a building is not investigated, and no reserves are recommended for what is not known. California recently enacted legislation that will require condominium associations inspect specific elevated structures for safety, including intrusive testing where indicated. But no other state requires this level of inspection, and few even require a reserve study to determine how much money to save for the obvious problems, never mind those no one knows about[4]. This situation leads to unfair consequences for those owners who find themselves unlucky enough to own a unit when the damage and deficits are finally realized. Damage discovered, say, in year 35 didn’t just happen in year 35. That deterioration likely began earlier in the building's life and lay hidden for decades. It is costly to repair when it finally becomes obvious or dangerous. No prior owner, those who owned and sold their units years ago, will pay any part of the cost of the eventual rehabilitation of that building due to past lack of adequate inspections and years of artificially low assessments. Instead, the present owners will be handed the entire tab for the shortfall from several decades of deferred maintenance or hidden damage—the last people standing when the music stops. Can this trend be reversed? As condominium buildings age and deterioration continues, the funding deficit increases dramatically. But to reverse that trend and reduce the deficit, someone must know it exists and be willing to address it. That requires more robust inspections early in the building's life and potentially higher assessments to stay even with any decay. Conclusion It would not be wrong to blame this on the failure of the basic condominium model. Volunteers rarely have sufficient training or expertise to oversee complex infrastructure maintenance, especially without mandatory funding to pay for it. The model also does not insist that board members have a talent for resolving conflicts. While condominium boards can leverage fines or legal action to enforce the rules, that lacks finesse and can create greater antagonism—a distraction from the more critical job of raising funds to inspect and maintain the building. Unit owner-managed, voluntarily funded, multi-million-dollar condominium projects were probably a bad idea from the beginning. But sadly, it is way too late to reverse course on the millions of such projects built in the past sixty years. Many are already reaching the end of their service lives, with no plan to deal with that. Robust inspection standards on new and existing projects and enforceable minimum funding for maintenance and repairs should be considered by state legislatures. But whatever the approach, the present system is not staying even with the deterioration of many buildings, and that is just not safe anymore.
    1. The collapse of the balcony in Berkeley occurred on an apartment building. But the construction of that building is similar or identical to the construction of most multi-story wood-frame condominiums.
    2. Boards of directors are empowered by statute or contract to assess members for operation and maintenance costs. However, there are few statutes that set minimum funding or otherwise require boards to exercise that authority.
    3. Even in states that require reserve studies, the physical inspections are inadequate to uncover some of the costliest damage. California’s reserve study statute—Civil Code Section 5550—only requires inspection of those components that are visible and accessible, leaving damage within walls and other structural components undiscovered and funding for the eventual repairs, unaddressed.
    4. In May 2022, in response to the Champlain Towers South collapse, Florida enacted mandatory structural inspections for buildings 30 years and older, repeating every 10 years thereafter. The law also includes mandatory reserve funding for structural components.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tyler P. Berding, Berding & Weil LLP
    Mr. Berding may be contacted at tberding@berdingweil.com

    Surge in Home Completions Tamps Down Inflation as Fed Meets

    June 17, 2015 —
    American builders are tamping down what little inflation there is. Construction companies completed 392,000 buildings with five or more units at an annualized rate in May, the most since 1988, Commerce Department figures showed Tuesday in Washington. “The pickup in demand is pushing up rents and also creating more incentive for builders to put up more units,” said Michael Hanson, a senior economist at Bank of America Corp. in New York. The jump in completions “helps offset some of the upward pressure we’ve seen” on rents, said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Carlos Torres, Bloomberg

    Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

    April 20, 2011 —

    The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.

    After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”

    “In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”

    Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:

    [1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.

    [a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.

    [b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.

    [2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.

    [3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.

    [4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.

    In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”

    The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”

    The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.

    The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”

    James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:

    “The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.

    In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”

    The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.

    Read the full story...

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Happenings in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar

    April 02, 2014 —
    For those who are attending the West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar May 15th-16th, the Construction Defect Journal has compiled a list of concerts, sporting events, and museum exhibitions taking place in and around Anaheim that week. Whether you like to spend your personal time checking out a new band, or watching your favorite Angel slide into home, or perusing the local art museum, there is something to spark your interest. CONCERT VENUES THE HOUSE OF BLUES IN ANAHEIM Blessthefall with Silverstein, The Amity Affliction, SECRETS and Heartist Tuesday, May 13th, 2014 Doors Open at 6pm / Show Begins at 7pm For More Information and to Purchase Tickets... THE HOUSE OF BLUES IN ANAHEIM Stephen "Ragga" Marley Saturday, May 17th, 2014 Doors Open at 8pm / Show Begins at 9pm For More Information and to Purchase Tickets... THE GROVE OF ANAHEIM Lindsey Stirling plus special guest Dia Frampton Wednesday, May 14, 2014 Doors Open at 7pm / Show Begins at 8pm For More Information and to Purchase Tickets... THE GROVE OF ANAHEIM Primal Fear Thursday, May 15, 2014 Doors Open at 6:30pm / Show Begins at 7pm For More Information and to Purchase Tickets... THE GROVE OF ANAHEIM Jillian Michaels 'Maximize Your Life' Tour Friday, May 16, 2014 Doors Open at 6pm / Show begins at 8pm For More Information and to Purchase Tickets... SPORTING EVENTS ANGEL’S STADIUM - BASEBALL The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim v. Tampa Bay Rays Thursday, May 15th at 7:05pm Friday, May 16th at 7:05pm Saturday, May 17th at 6:05pm Sunday, May 18th at 12:35pm For More Information and to Purchase Tickets... MUSEUM EXHIBITIONS MUZEO Transcending Trash: The Art of Upcycling Sat Apr 26 – Sun Aug 31, 2014 Museum Days/Hours: Tuesday – Sunday (Closed Mondays) / 10 am to 5 pm For More Information and to Purchase Tickets... BOWERS MUSEUM (Santa Ana) BEETHOVEN: THE LATE GREAT February 8, 2014 - May 18, 2014 Museum Days/Hours: Tuesday – Sunday (Closed Mondays) / 10 am to 4 pm For More Information and to Purchase Tickets... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    One Insurer's Settlement with Insured Does Not Bar Contribution Claim by Other Insurers

    October 30, 2013 —
    The New Jersey Supreme Court held that one insurer could seek contribution from another insurer who settled with and secured a release from the insured. Potomac Ins. Co. v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Ass'n Ins. Co., 2013 N.J. LEXIS 847 (N.J. Sept. 16, 2013) The township of Evesham retained Roland Aristone, Inc. to be its general contractor for construction of a new middle school. After completion of the school, the roof leaked. Evesham sued Aristone for the construction defects. Aristone tendered to its various CGL carriers. Two insurers, Selective Way Insurance Company and OneBeacon Insurance Company, defended. Two others, Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Insurance Company (PMA) and Royal Insurance Company, denied coverage. Aristone sued PMA and Royal, and ultimately settled with PMA for $150,000 in exchange for Aristone's release from all claims, including claims for defense fees and costs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com