BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projects
    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


    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 2: Coverage for Smoke-Related Damages

    Landmark San Diego Hotel Settles Defects Suit for $6.4 Million

    Business Interruption Claim Upheld

    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

    MetLife Takes Majority Stake in New San Francisco Office Tower

    Tension Over Municipal Gas Bans Creates Uncertainty for Real Estate Developers

    Floors Collapse at Russian University in St. Petersburg

    Report: Construction Firms Could Better Protect Workers From Noise Hazards

    New York Bars Developers from Selling Condos due to CD Fraud Case

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2022 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

    The Business of Engineering: An Interview with Matthew Loos

    Judge Dismisses Suit to Block Construction of Obama Center

    Corps Issues Draft EIS for Controversial Alaskan Copper Mine

    Court Narrowly Interprets “Faulty Workmanship” Provision

    Fargo Shows Record Home Building

    Breath of Fresh Air

    Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben Obtains Federal Second Circuit Affirmance of Summary Judgment in Insurer’s Favor

    Construction Jobs Keep Rising, with April Gain of 33,000

    The Golden State Commits to Going Green – Why Contractors Will be in High Demand to Build the State’s Infrastructure

    Denver’s Proposed Solution to the Affordable Housing Crisis

    Meet Daniel Hall, Assistant Professor at TU Delft

    Buy a House or Pay Off College? $1.2 Trillion Student Debt Heats Up in Capital

    How to Survive the Insurance Claim Process Before It Starts –Five Tips to Keep Your Insurance Healthy

    Empowering Success: The Advantages of Female Attorneys in Construction Defect Law

    Homebuilders See Record Bearish Bets on Shaky Recovery

    Union Handbilling: When, Where, and Why it is Legal

    Know Your Obligations Under Both the Prime Contract and Subcontract

    In Oregon Construction Defect Claims, “Contract Is (Still) King”

    Mississippi River Spends 40 Days At Flood Stage, Mayors Push for Infrastructure Funding

    South Adams County Water and Sanitation District Takes Proactive Step to Treat PFAS, Safeguard Water Supplies

    2022 Project of the Year: Linking Los Angeles

    U.S. Construction Value Flat at End of Summer

    What You Need to Know About “Ipso Facto” Clauses and Their Impact on Termination of a Contractor or Subcontractor in a Bankruptcy

    More Charges Anticipated in Las Vegas HOA Scam

    Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    Home Improvement in U.S. Slowing or Still Intact -- Which Is It?

    Is It Time to Get Rid of Retainage?

    Revisiting the CMO; Are We Overusing the Mediation Privilege?

    Interior Designer Licensure

    Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    A Murder in Honduras Reveals the Dark Side of Clean Energy

    Pandemic-Related Construction Materials Pricing Poses Challenges in Construction Lawsuits

    School District Client Advisory: Civility is not an Option, It is a Duty

    Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

    Senior Housing Surplus Seen as Boomers Spur Building Boom

    Colorado Construction-Defects Reform Law Attempt Expected in 2015

    Seven Proactive Steps to Avoid Construction Delay Disputes

    Hamptons Home Up for Foreclosure That May Set Record
    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

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    August 11, 2011 —

    It’s been a while since I discussed the importance of safety. But, a recent article on ENR.com compelled this brief article. Don’t shortcut safety — you could be facing serious criminal repercussions.

    A New York crane company owner and one of his employees are each facing a second-degree manslaughter charge for the death of two construction workers.  The charges stem from the collapse of a crane in New York City. The district attorney determined that the crane owner cut a few corners to reduce its operation costs, significantly sacrificing safety.

    Another example was the 2010 trial of another New York crane operator who was charged with manslaughter. In that case, the criminal charges failed to stick, but an administrative judge found that the contractor used a damaged sling to support the steel collar binding the tower-crane mast to the 18th floor of a high-rise building being constructed. The company also used four slings instead of the eight, as specified by the crane manufacturer; improperly attached the slings and failed to pad or soften them.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

    Hawaii Court Looks at Changes to Construction Defect Coverage after Changes in Law

    November 06, 2013 —
    A construction defect case lead at the U.S. District Court for Hawaii involved the insurer’s changed views on what was covered based on court decisions that came after the policy was written. John R. Casciano and Jessica L. Urban of Steptoe & Johnson LLP discuss the case on their firm’s website. They note that in Illinois National Insurance Company v. Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., Nordic built a retail building which soon afterwards had water leaks and property damage, due to alleged defects in the roof construction. Nordic had purchased comprehensive general liability and umbrella polices, with coverage that included property damage. Mr. Casciano and Ms. Urban note that “at the time of contracting, the Ninth Circuit had predicted that, ‘if the Hawaii Supreme Court examined the matter, it would rule that, for purposes of insurance coverage, construction defects were “not occurrences.”’” After the policy was written, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals did rule that “construction defect claims do not constitute an ‘occurrence’ under a CGL policy.” On the basis of this, Illinois National determined that they had no duty to defend or indemnify their client. Nordic made a claim of bad faith, but the court determined that “an insurer that denies coverage based on an open question of law does not act in bad faith, an insurer that actually relies on governing law, even if the insurer only belatedly learns of the law, cannot be said to thereby act in bad faith.” However, the court denied a summary judgment of Nordic’s claim of negligent misrepresentation, determining that there was “a question of fact as to whether the Policies covered [or were represented as covering] only damage to third parties caused by subcontractors’ defective work.” Finally, the court found that “a reasonable jury could infer that, at the time the Polices were issued, the insurers meant to cover claims arising out of the defective work” of Nordic’s subcontractors. They conclude that the Nordic decision “recognizes the varying consequences for coverage claims when post-contracting changes to the law may not coincide with the expectations of at least one of the parties at the time of contracting.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Chambers USA 2021 Recognizes Five Partners and Two Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    June 07, 2021 —
    Five Lewis Brisbois partners and two Lewis Brisbois practices were recently ranked by Chambers in its 2021 USA rankings list. Kansas City and 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, while Minneapolis Partner Tina A. Syring was ranked Band 4 for “Labor & Employment – Minnesota,” and Washington D.C. Managing Partner Jane C. Luxton and Partner Karen C. Bennett were ranked Band 5 for “Environment – District of Columbia.” Significantly, Chambers also ranked Lewis Brisbois’ Kansas Labor & Employment Practice Band 2 and the firm’s Washington D.C. Environmental Practice Band 4. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Limited Number of Insurance-Related Bills Passed by 2014 Hawaii Legislature

    June 11, 2014 —
    Very few insurance-related bills survived the 2014 Hawaii Legislative session, with several consumer-friendly bills failing to make it out of committee. Here is a summary of the bills that passed: SB2365: Limits reimbursement of prescription medications in order to prevent drug prices from becoming an unreasonable cost driver of health care in workers' compensation and motor vehicle insurance claims. SB2470: Appropriates general funds to provide for the sustainability of the Hawaii Health Connector, but provides for greater transparency, stakeholder engagement, and legislative involvement in the activities of the Hawaii Health Connector. 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

    Release Of “Unknown” Claim Does Not Bar Release Of “Unaccrued” Claim: Fair Or Unfair?

    July 15, 2019 —
    A general release of “unknown” claims through the effective date of the release does NOT bar “unaccrued” claims. This is especially important when it comes to fraud claims where the facts giving rise to the fraud may have occurred prior to the effective date in the release, but a party did not learn of the fraud until well after the effective date in the release. A recent opinion maintained that a general release that bars unknown claims does NOT mean a fraud claim will be barred since the last element to prove a fraud had not occurred, and thus, the fraud claim had not accrued until after the effective date in the release. See Falsetto v. Liss, Fla. L. Weekly D1340D (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“The 2014 [Settlement] Agreement’s plain language released the parties only from “known or unknown” claims, not future or unaccrued claims. Because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the fraud claim had accrued — that is, whether Falsetto [party to Settlement Agreement] knew or through the exercise of due diligence should have known about the alleged fraud at the time the 2014 Agreement was executed — the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on those fraud claims.”). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    “But it’s 2021!” Service of Motion to Vacate Via Email Found Insufficient by the Eleventh Circuit

    June 21, 2021 —
    While we are all getting used to the “new normal” of working remotely and relying on emails for almost all communications, a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit provides arbitration practitioners with a stark reminder – the “notice” requirements of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) will be strictly enforced and providing notice of a motion to vacate via email may not qualify as proper service. In O'Neal Constructors, LLC v. DRT Am., LLC, 991 F.3d 1376 (11th Cir. 2021), O’Neal Constructors, LLC (O’Neal) and DRT America (DRT) entered into a contract containing an arbitration provision. Following a dispute, the parties went to arbitration and, on January 7, 2019, the panel issued an award requiring DRT to pay O’Neal a total of $1,415,193. The amount awarded to O’Neal consisted of two parts: $765,102 for the underlying contract dispute and $650,090 for reimbursement of O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees. While DRT paid O’Neal the first portion of the award, DRT refused to pay the portion that related to O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees. On April 4, 2019, as a result of DRT’s refusal to pay O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees, O’Neal filed a motion to confirm the award in Georgia state court (which was subsequently removed to the Northern District of Georgia). The next day, in a separate action, DRT filed a motion to vacate the attorneys’ fees portion of the award and, that same night, DRT’s counsel emailed O’Neal’s counsel a “courtesy copy” of DRT’s memorandum in support of the motion to vacate. A few weeks later, on April 30, 2019 (i.e., more than three months after the award was issued), DRT served O’Neal (via U.S. Marshall) with a copy of the motion to vacate. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin Fortescue, White and Williams
    Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com

    Glendale City Council Approves Tohono O’odham Nation Casino

    August 13, 2014 —
    With a 4-3 vote, the Glendale, Arizona city council “approved an agreement with the Tohono O’odham Nation to build a casino adjacent to the city,” according to the Arizona Public Media. The tribe, under the agreement, “will commit more than $25 million over the next 20 years to the city.” The agreement also stipulates that Glendale “will try to convince state and federal officials to end their opposition to the casino plans.” City Councilman Gary Sherwood stated that he “he doesn't believe the tribe has firm plans for construction yet, but he said he wouldn't be surprised if there was gaming on the site by next fall.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Court Enforces Construction Management Exclusion

    March 14, 2018 —
    In its recent decision in Houston Cas. Co. v. Cavan Corp. of NY, Inc., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1138 (N.Y. 1st Dep’t Feb. 20, 2018), a New York appellate court had occasion to consider the application of a construction management exclusion in a general liability policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP