BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut forensic architect
    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


    Tom Newmeyer Elected Director At Large to the 2017 Orange County Bar Association Board of Directors

    David M. McLain to Speak at the CLM Claims College - School of Construction - Scholarships Available

    A Teaming Agreement is Still a Contract (or, Be Careful with Agreements to Agree)

    DOE Abruptly Cancels $13B Cleanup Award to BWXT-Fluor Team

    Indemnitor Owes Indemnity Even Where Indemnitee is Actively Negligent, California Court Holds

    Federal District Court Dismisses Property Claim After Insured Allows Loss Location to Be Destroyed Prior to Inspection

    Practical Pointers for Change Orders on Commercial Construction Contracts

    Unlocking the Potential of AI and Chat GBT in Construction Management

    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

    Ex-Engineered Products Firm Executive Convicted of Bid Rigging

    California MCLE Seminar at BHA Sacramento July 11th

    Canada to Ban Foreigners From Buying Homes as Prices Soar

    BHA Has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports NCHV and Final Salute at 2017 WCC Seminar

    Restoring the USS Alabama: Surety Lessons From an 80-Year-Old Battleship

    Traub Lieberman Partners Dana Rice and Jason Taylor Obtain Summary Judgment For Insurance Carrier Client in Missouri Federal Court Coverage Action

    Punchlist: The News We Didn’t Quite Get To – May 2016

    Recent Regulatory Activity

    A Court-Side Seat: Guam’s CERCLA Claim Allowed, a “Roundup” Verdict Upheld, and Judicial Process Privilege Lost

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces Jason Moberly Caruso As Its Newest Partner

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    PSA: Virginia DOLI Amends COVID Workplace Standard

    Construction Manager Has Defense As Additional Insured

    Harborside Condo Construction Defect Settlement Moves Forward

    The Shifting Sands of Alternative Dispute Resolution

    Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

    Investigation of Orange County Landslide

    Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

    A Lawyer's Perspective on Current Issues Dominating the Construction Industry

    San Diego: Compromise Reached in Fee Increases for Affordable Housing

    Ohio Supreme Court Case to Decide Whether or Not to Expand Insurance Coverage Under GC’s CGL Insurance Policies

    Supreme Court of Oregon Affirms Decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al.

    Risk Protection: Force Majeure Agreements Take on Renewed Relevance

    Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity Rule Gets “Trumped” by Indemnity Provision

    The OFCCP’s November 2019 Updated Technical Assistance Guide: What Every Federal Construction Contractor Should Know

    The DOL Claims Most Independent Contractors Are Employees

    Thank You for Seven Years of Election to Super Lawyers

    Additional Insured Status Survives Summary Judgment Stage

    Blog: Congress Strikes a Blow to President Obama’s “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” Executive Order 13673

    AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages

    Alabama Still “An Outlier” on Construction Defects

    Getting U.S to Zero Carbon Will Take a $2.5 Trillion Investment by 2030

    Statutory Bad Faith and an Insured’s 60 Day Notice to Cure

    It’s a Jolly Time of the Year: 5 Tips for Dealing with Construction Labor Issues During the Holidays

    Change #7- Contractor’s Means & Methods (law note)

    24th Annual West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar A Success

    New York Court Narrowly Interprets “Expected or Intended Injury” Exclusion in Win for Policyholder

    When is a Residential Subcontractor not Subject to the VCPA? Read to Find Out

    Trial Victory in San Mateo County!

    Revolutionizing Buildings with Hybrid Energy Systems and Demand Response

    A Look at Trending Legislative Changes Impacting Workers' Comp
    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

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Business Interruption, COVID-19 Claims Under Pollution Policy Fails

    January 11, 2022 —
    The insurer was unsuccessful in seeking to dismiss business interruption claims due to COVID-19 under a pollution policy. New York Botanical Garden v. Allied World Assur., 2021 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct.15, 2021). The insured was forced to cease operation after executive orders by the governor and mayor were issued in March 2020. The insured also had to reduce its in-person workforce by 100%. The insured's claim for business interruption and contingent business interruption were denied by Allied. The insured sued for a declaratory judgment. Allied moved to dismiss, arguing that the executive orders were issued for prophylactic reasons in an effort to mitigate the spread of the virus. They were not issued solely to address the presence of COVID-19 at any non-insured owned location, but were issued broadly to limit the risk of spreading the COVID-19 virus. The insured responded that its broader pollution liability policy was not a typical civil authority policy that required the physical loss or damage to 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 te@hawaiilawyer.com

    KB Homes Sues Condo Buyers over Alleged Cybersquatting and Hacking

    October 22, 2013 —
    Willowbrook, a condominium complex in Lakewood Ranch, Florida has had problems with water intrusion. Now the builder is having problems with some of the residents. National home builder KB Homes is alleging that a pair of Willowbrook home owners who created a web site about their problems have violated federal cybersquatting laws, as the web site names they have registered are close to that KB Homes. The suit alleges that Andrew Smith and Daniel Koehler hope to either get KB Homes to purchase the web site or to buy back their homes. The lawsuit also alleges that three other individuals, William Crismon, Patrick McGettigan, and Armando Oyola-Delgado, conspired to intercept e-mails between KB Home and Dueall Construction. KB Homes claims that the three gained access to a WiFi hotspot used by Dueall. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Maritime Charters and the Specter of a New Permitting Regime

    February 24, 2020 —
    Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two important environmental cases—one that could change the approach to routine maritime charters and another that could introduce a potentially punishing permitting regime via a CWA citizen suit. Cleaning the Delaware: CITGO Asphalt Refining Company v. Frescati Shipping Company The CITGO case involves a large oil spill into the Delaware River, and who bears financial responsibility for the cleanup. CITGO chartered an oil tanker to bring Venezuelan crude oil to CITGO’s New Jersey refinery located on the Delaware River. The tanker struck a submerged and abandoned anchor within yards of the refinery, and a large and expensive oil spill resulted. In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act, both the shipper, Frescati Shipping Company, and the United States, paid for the immediate oil spill response, and CITGO was later sued for a large share of these costs based on the fact that it entered into a charter with Frescati, which obliged CITGO to provide a “safe berth.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that CITGO was liable under the principles of maritime law, meaning that CITGO was strictly liable for the spill even if no one knew that the anchor was present on the floor of the river or lurking in the waters of the Delaware River. CITGO has argued that this result is unfair and poses a threat to the maritime shipping industry if it is held to be strictly liable for this spill. It appears that this is may well be the majority rule that is applied when interpreting these routinely entered maritime charters. The Court’s decision will be immensely important to the shipping industry. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    French Laundry Spices Up COVID-19 Business Interruption Debate

    April 20, 2020 —
    On March 26, 2020, Michelin-rated Napa Valley restaurants, French Laundry and Bouchon Bistro, and their celebrity chef, Thomas Keller, filed the second known coronavirus-related declaratory judgment (DJ) lawsuit by a restaurant. The restaurants filed their DJ against Hartford Fire Insurance Company just seven days after Napa County issued a Shelter at Home Order.1 Chef Keller’s suit comes on the heels of the first such suit by a restaurant seeking to recover business income losses, filed by iconic New Orleans French Quarter restaurant Oceana Grill2 on March 17, just four days after the Louisiana governor issued an order prohibiting gatherings of more than 250 people. As local governments seek to protect their citizens and prevent an onslaught of cases in area hospitals, they are issuing various “stay home,” “shelter at home,” and similar orders to force social distancing and to help flatten the curve of the growth in COVID-19 cases. Restaurants nationwide are especially hard hit by these orders, as many of these orders contain size limitations on gatherings, which have required that restaurants and bars limit capacity (as in the March 13th Louisiana order). Other such orders require non-essential businesses to “cease all activities in the County” (as in the Napa County Shelter at Home order). The Napa County order does not exempt restaurants as “essential businesses,” except when providing food for take-out or delivery. Other orders, still, directly address restaurants and require them to cease allowing public consumption of food and beverages (as in the subsequent, March 17th Louisiana order). Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Ms. McDonald may be contacted at mam@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Consider the Risks Associated with an Exculpatory Clause

    November 24, 2019 —
    An exculpatory clause in a contract is a clause aimed at relieving another party from certain liability. A disclaimer and insulation from liability. Obviously, if you are the party relieving the other party from liability, you want to consider this risk including the potential enforceability of this risk if something goes wrong. If you are the party asking for the insulation from liability, you do not want to create an exculpatory provision that disclaims and insulates you of all liability arising from the contract as it may create an illusory effect – that the agreement is nothing but a naked promise on your end because your promise is fully disclaimed and you are insulated from liability if you break your promise. This could result in an unenforceable contract. The validity of such an exculpatory clause was at-issue in Pier 1 Cruise Experts v. Revelex Corp., 2019 WL 3024618 (11thCir. 2019). Although not a construction dispute, the exculpatory clause in this case was with two fairly sophisticated parties and expressly insulated one of the contracting parties from “any…damages regardless of kind or type…whether in contract, tort (including negligence), or otherwise.” Pier 1 Cruise Experts, 2019 WL at *7. This is a powerful exculpatory clause because it could be broadly construed to insulate that party from its own breaches of the contract. In Florida:
    [A]n exculpatory clause is enforceable so long as (1) the contracting parties have equal bargaining power and (2) the clause’s provisions are clear and unambiguous. With respect to the latter requirement, ‘the intention to be relieved from liability [must be] made clear and unequivocal and the wording must be so clear and understandable that an ordinary and knowledgeable person will know what he is contracting away.” In the same vein, exculpatory clauses are ‘strictly construed against the party seeking to be relieved of liability.’ Pier 1 Cruise Experts, 2019 WL at *7 (internal citations omitted).
    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

    Gene Witkin Joins Ross Hart’s Mediation Team at AMCC

    March 01, 2021 —
    AMCC is pleased to announce Gene Witkin joining Ross Hart’s mediation team effective March 1 this year. Prior to joining our esteemed roster of neutrals, Mr. Witkin was active in complex litigation, insurance disputes, and conflict resolution in numerous different states and venues throughout the United States for more than thirty years. In 2000, he co-founded the law firm Menter & Witkin LLP that focused in large part on risk sharing and funding of large lawsuits, which gave him the diverse experience of representing both plaintiffs and defendants, as well as third-party defendants and insurance companies. Mr. Witkin completed mediator training at National Conflict Resolution Center in 2017, and is an AV Rated “Preeminent Attorney” by Martindale-Hubbell (highest rating) and “Super Lawyer” every year since 2015. He may be contacted at g.witkin@amccenter.com or through AMCC at (800) 645-4874. Reprinted courtesy of Arbitration Mediation Conciliation Center (AMCC) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    This New Indicator Shows There's No Bubble Forming in U.S. Housing

    April 01, 2015 —
    When a parking space in Manhattan costs $136,000 and only 15 percent of San Francisco's homes are affordable for the middle class, it's easy to worry that another housing bubble is around the corner. The vast majority of American homeowners have little to fear: A new gauge from Nationwide Insurance in Columbus, Ohio, suggests the national market is in its best shape since 2001 and there's no reason to fear a national downturn, no less a bursting bubble. In its first data release, the national Leading Index of Healthy Housing Markets rose to 109.8 in the fourth quarter. Values greater than 100 indicate a robust industry. The index uses local data in 373 metropolitan statistical areas that are underlying drivers of the housing market, including measures on employment changes, demographics and the mortgage market. Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko, Bloomberg and Nina Glinski, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Panthers Withdraw City, County Deal Over Abandoned Facility

    September 19, 2022 —
    Columbia, S.C. (AP) -- Carolina Panthers owner David Tepper’s real estate company wants to revoke a bankruptcy settlement it negotiated with the city and county where its abandoned South Carolina practice facility was supposed to be built because it says the governments are making exorbitant and unreasonable demands. GT Real Estate Holdings had offered $21 million to York County. It suggested giving the proceeds from selling part of its site in Rock Hill so the city would get at least $20 million. But the county and city have filed separate lawsuits and court papers. York County said it is entitled to more than $80 million in part to get back money from a special penny sales tax that was supposed to expand a road but Tepper’s company used for the proposed practice facility. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg