BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness
    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


    US Appeals Court Halts OSHA Vaccine Mandate, Unclear How Long

    Don’t Kick the Claim Until the End of the Project: Timely Give Notice and Preserve Your Claims on Construction Projects

    Ambiguity in Insurance Policy will be Interpreted in Favor of Insurance Coverage

    Is A Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound by A Default or Default Judgment Against Its Principal?

    Construction Delays for China’s Bahamas Resort Project

    Coverage For Advertising Injury Barred by Prior Publication Exclusion

    Bribe Charges Take Toll on NY Contractor

    OSHA Again Pushes Back Record-Keeping Rule Deadline

    Who Would Face Liability For Oroville Dam Management: Brett Moore Authors Law360 Article

    Court Addresses When Duty to Defend Ends

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/30/24) – Life Science Construction to Increase, Overall Homeownership Is Majority Female, and Senators Urge Fed Chair to Lower Interest Rates

    Motion to Strike Insurer's Expert Opinion Granted

    Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim

    Uniformity in Florida’s Construction Bond Laws Brings About Fairness for the Industry

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    OSHA’s Multi-Employer Citation Policy: What Employers on Construction Sites Need to Know

    BIM Meets Reality on the Construction Site

    Where Parched California Is Finding New Water Sources

    William Lyon Homes Unites with Polygon Northwest Company

    Construction Defect Claim over LAX Runways

    Las Vegas’ McCarran Tower Construction Issues Delays Opening

    A New Way to Design in 3D – Interview with Pouria Kay of Grib

    Labor Shortages In Construction

    Professional Liability Client Alert: Law Firms Should Consider Hiring Outside Counsel Before Suing Clients For Unpaid Fees

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ruling On Certificates Of Merit And “Gist Of Action” May Make It More Difficult For An Architect Or Engineer To Seek An Early Dismissal

    Updates to the CEQA Guidelines Have Been Finalized

    Affirmed: Insureds Bear the Burden of Allocating Covered Versus Uncovered Losses

    National Infrastructure Leaders Visit Dallas' Able Pump Station to Tout Benefits of Water Infrastructure Investment

    Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

    White and Williams Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers

    No Coverage For Construction Defect Under Illinois Law

    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is Proud to Announce Jeannette Garcia Has Been Elected as Secretary of the Hispanic Bar Association of Orange County!

    New Jersey’s Independent Contractor Rule

    Edward Beitz and William Taylor Recognized by US News – Best Lawyers as a "Lawyer of the Year"

    The Dog Ate My Exclusion! – Georgia Federal Court: No Reformation to Add Pollution Exclusion

    Lis Pendens – Recordation and Dissolution

    Update Regarding New York City’s Climate Mobilization Act (CMA) and the Reduction of Carbon Emissions in New York City

    Jury Trials and Mediation in Philadelphia County: Virtually in Person

    Insured Entitled to Defense After Posting Medical Records Online

    Is Solar the Next Focus of Construction Defect Suits?

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Slump to Lowest Level Since November

    ASCE Statement on Passing of Senator Dianne Feinstein

    In Contracts, One Word Makes All the Difference

    Vacant Property and the Right of Redemption in Pennsylvania

    Tighter Requirements and a New Penalty for Owners of Vacant or Abandoned Storefronts in San Francisco

    Constructive Notice Established as Obstacle to Relation Back Doctrine

    Texas Supreme Court Holds Stipulated Extrinsic Evidence May Be Considered in Determining Duty to Defend

    Motion to Dismiss COVID Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part

    Florida Condos Bet on Americans Making 50% Down Payments

    Connecticut’s New False Claims Act Increases Risk to Public Construction Participants
    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

    Faulty Workmanship an Occurrence in Iowa – as Long as Other Property Damage is Involved

    November 30, 2016 —
    The Eighth Circuit recently weighed in on one of the more contentious issues in insurance coverage litigation: is faulty workmanship an occurrence? In Decker Plastics Inc. v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., the Eighth Circuit ruled that, under Iowa law, faulty workmanship is an occurrence – as long as it leads to other property damage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Austin D. Moody, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Moody may be contacted at adm@sdvlaw.com

    Mold Due to Construction Defects May Temporarily Close Fire Station

    October 25, 2013 —
    Fire Station 5 in Chino, California is about to undergo mold remediation. Ruben Martinez, the city’s Public Works Director, expects the station to be closed during remediation. “We’d like to get the firemen out of there so there isn’t any potential infection or worker’s compensation issues,” he said. However, Fire Department Captain Steve Harrison did not think the station needed to be closed. “We are adamant the station stays staffed while the remediation work is completed.” The mold came about due to problems the station has had with roof leaks since its opening in 1999. The current set of repairs will cost between $12,000 and $25,000, and the city is discussing matters with its insurer to determine who will pay for the repairs. It’ won’t be the original contractor, as the building is past the 10-year limit for construction defect claims. Even if a claim were possible, the contractor who built the building is bankrupt. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Washington State Enacts Law Restricting Non-Compete Agreements

    September 23, 2019 —
    Washington State has enacted a new law that means big changes for employers. The new law, in effect on January 1, 2020, will dramatically limit the enforcement of non-compete agreements in our state and imposes tough penalties on employers found to be in violation. While the new law does not take effect for many months, businesses should nonetheless act quickly and before year’s end to evaluate practices and, if necessary, revise existing and future non-compete agreements to ensure compliance. Under the new law, if an employee successfully proves a company’s non-compete agreement is unenforceable, then the employer will be required to pay the greater of $5,000 or an employee’s actual damages, plus the employee’s attorneys’ fees (and its own, in defending the non-compete), expenses and costs incurred in challenging the agreement. Brief Summary of Changes Washington Courts have typically disfavored restrictive covenants but usually enforced a non-competition agreement that protected an employer’s legitimate business interests and was reasonable in scope, geographic reach, and duration. The Legislature halted this trend through passage of Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1450. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Perka, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Perka may be contacted at ellie.perka@acslawyers.com

    OSHA Announces Expansion of “Severe Violator Enforcement Program”

    November 15, 2022 —
    (October 28, 2022) - Employers beware! The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is significantly expanding its “Severe Violator Enforcement Program” (SVEP). Employers that are placed into the program by OSHA will be significantly scrutinized, with the potential for very damaging information about their failure to maintain a safe workplace being made public for customers, partners, and vendors to see. As the name suggests, the program is meant to identify, classify, and then stringently monitor employees deemed to be “severe violators” of the OSH Act. According to the OSHA website alert, to be deemed a “severe violator”, the agency must find that the employer has demonstrated “indifference” to the regulations by committing “willful, repeated, or failure-to-abate” violations. Reprinted courtesy of Kip J. Adams, Lewis Brisbois and Steven G. Gatley, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Adams may be contacted at Kip.Adams@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Gatley may be contacted at Steven.Gatley@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Appeals Court Rules that CGL Policy Doesn’t Cover Subcontractors’ Faulty Work

    August 06, 2014 —
    According to Business Insurance, in J-McDaniel Construction Co. Inc. v. Mid-Continental Casualty Co. et al., an appeals court upheld a lower court ruling that a “construction company's commercial general liability insurance policy does not provide coverage for faulty workmanship or subcontractor negligence.” “We are not at liberty to disregard the binding law of the state, nor may we substitute our judgment for that of the Arkansas Supreme Court,” said the panel, in affirming the lower court ruling, as quoted in Business Insurance. Judy Greenwald of Business Insurance pointed out that “[l]ast year, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati held that a subcontractor's allegedly faulty preparation of a building pad, which resulted in subsequent settling and structural damage to the building constructed on top of it, was not an occurrence within the standard coverage language of a CGL policy.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Claim for Consequential Damages Survives Motion to Dismiss

    November 14, 2018 —
    The insured's claim for consequential damages survived the insurer's motion to dismiss. Tiffany Tower Condominium, LLC v. Ins. Co. of the Greater N.Y., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5783 (N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 22, 2018). Tiffany Tower submitted a claim in November 2012 with Insurance Company of the Great New York for damages sustained by its building during Superstorm Sandy. The insurer paid the original claim in December 2012. Then, in September 2014, Tiffany Tower submitted a supplemental claim for additional losses which it asserted were caused by the storm. The insurer denied the supplemental claim. 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 te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    June 30, 2016 —
    On July 20, 2015, diplomatic relations were officially restored between the U.S. and Cuba. Since that date, a number of significant political events have taken place. First, the U.S. reopened its embassy in Cuba on August 14, 2015. Next, on January 26, 2016, offices of the U.S. Departments of the Treasury and Commerce announced new amendments to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations and Export Administration Regulations. These amendments removed “existing restrictions on payment and financing terms for authorized exports and reexports to Cuba of items other than agricultural items or commodities,” and established “a case-by-case licensing policy for exports and reexports of items to meet the needs of the Cuban people, including those made to Cuban state-owned enterprises.”[1] Additionally, these amendments “further facilitate travel to Cuba for authorized purposes by allowing blocked space, code-sharing, and leasing arrangements with Cuban airlines, authorizing additional travel-related and other transactions directly incident to the temporary sojourn of aircraft and vessels, and authorizing additional transactions related to professional meetings and other events, disaster preparedness and response projects, and information and informational materials, including transactions incident to professional media or artist productions in Cuba.”[2] Finally, on March 21, 2016, President Barack Obama was the first sitting U.S. President to visit Cuba since the 1959 revolution, in which Fidel Castro overthrew Fulgencio Batista. This revolution ultimately led to the U.S. severing diplomatic relations in 1961 and President John F. Kennedy imposing a trade embargo between the U.S. and Cuba, which remains in effect today. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sanjo Shatley, Esq., Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Shatley may be contacted at sanjo.shatley@csklegal.com

    Court Adopts Magistrate's Recommendation to Deny Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

    June 06, 2018 —
    The district court accepted the magistrate's recommended ruling denying the insurer's motion for summary judgment on breach of contract and bad faith claims in a case involving collapse. Jang v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51880 (D. Conn. March 27, 2018). After purchase of their home, the insureds' inspector found large cracks in the foundation. Liberty denied coverage, contending that the basement wall was collapsing due to settling earth or movement. The insureds' expert later found the foundation had cracks from the oxidation of iron sulfide minerals in the foundation's concrete. The insureds sued for breach of contract, bad faith, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practice Act and the Unfair Trade Practices Act. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com