BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimony
    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


    Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2020

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred By Exclusion j (5)

    Changes to Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act in New York Introduced

    Fifth Circuit -- Damage to Property Beyond Insured’s Product/Work Not Precluded By ‘Your Product/Your Work Exclusion’

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers®

    Nonparty Discovery in California Arbitration: How to Get What You Want

    2013 May Be Bay Area’s Best Year for Commercial Building

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    Homebuilders Opposed to Potential Change to Interest on Construction Defect Expenses

    Triggering Duty to Advance Costs Same Standard as Duty to Defend

    Mississippi Floods Prompt New Look at Controversial Dam Project

    Bank Window Lawsuit Settles Quietly

    Chambers USA 2019 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    California Supreme Court McMillin Ruling

    Fraud Claims and Breach Of Warranty Claims Against Manufacturer

    Staying the Course, Texas Supreme Court Rejects Insurer’s Argument for Exception to Eight-Corners Rule in Determining Duty to Defend

    Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

    Stucco Contractor Trying to Limit Communication in Construction Defect Case

    White and Williams Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers

    Five Actions Construction and Energy Risk Managers Can Take to Avoid the Catastrophic Consequences of a Cyber Attack

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 2- Increase the Heat

    Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

    Blackstone to Buy Apartments From Greystar in $2 Billion Deal

    Landowners Try to Choke Off Casino's Water With 19th-Century Lawsuit

    Senator Ray Scott Introduced a Bill to Reduce Colorado’s Statute of Repose for Construction Defect Actions to Four Years

    Buffalo-Area Roof Collapses Threaten Lives, Businesses After Historic Snowfall

    Structure of Champlain Towers North Appears Healthy

    Keeping KeyArena's Landmark Lid Overhead at Climate Pledge Arena Redevelopment Is A 22,000-Ton Balancing Act

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

    No Duty to Defend Under Renter's Policy

    Federal Court Enforces “Limits” and “Most We Will Pay” Clauses in Additional Insured Endorsement

    Louisiana Court Applies Manifestation Trigger to Affirm Denial of Coverage

    Key Amendments to Insurance Claims-Handling Regulations in Puerto Rico

    U.K. Construction Resumes Growth Amid Resurgent Housing Activity

    Commercial Construction Heating Up

    Boston Catwalk Collapse Injures Three Workers

    Useful Life: A Valuable Theory for Reducing Damages

    Denver’s Mayor Addresses Housing and Modifying Construction Defect Law

    Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim

    Was Jury Right in Negligent Construction Case?

    Michigan Court of Appeals Remands Construction Defect Case

    Retrofitting Buildings Is the Unsexy Climate Fix the World Needs

    Trumark Homes Hired James Furey as VP of Land Acquisition

    Appeals Court Affirms Civil Engineer Owes No Duty of Care to General Contractor

    Contractual Warranty Agreements May Preclude Future Tort Recovery

    No Coverage for Collapse of Building

    Be Strategic When Suing a Manufacturer Under a Warranty with an Arbitration Provision

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives First Tier Ranking by U.S. News and World Reports

    The NAR asks FAA to Amend their Drone Rules for Real Estate Use

    Sold Signs Fill Builder Lots as U.S. Confidence Rises: Economy
    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

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Affirms Broker's Liability for Failure to Renew Coverage

    July 16, 2014 —
    The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's finding that the broker was liable for failing to secure coverage for the insureds' home. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Vreeken, 2014 Haw. App. LEXIS 322 (Haw. Ct. App. June 30, 2014). Based upon their dealings with the broker, the insureds thought they had coverage for their home from March 3, 2004 to March 3, 2005 and from May 9, 2005 to May 8, 2006. The house was elevated nine feet above the ground for structural renovation, but collapsed on May 23, 2005. The original policy had lapsed on March 3, 2005. The second policy was voided because the application prepared by the broker stated there was no renovation work underway on the property. The insureds sued. The jury found the broker and its agent liable for general, special and punitive damages. An appeal was filed. The ICA largely affirmed after addressing the many points raised on appeal. 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

    French Government Fines National Architects' Group $1.6M Over Fee-Fixing

    December 09, 2019 —
    The French government’s anti-trust agency has fined the national architects’ registration group and four regional councils $1.64 million (€1.5 million) for price-fixing design fees on public works. Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Cross-Party Exclusion: The Hazards of Additional Named Insured Provisions

    July 19, 2021 —
    Most construction contracts contain insurance provisions setting forth the insurance required of the contractor or other downstream parties. Some provisions are detailed and lengthy while others are short and sweet, but all are of critical importance and should be fully understood by the contractor before signing the contract. Also, every insured should understand not only what the contract requires but more importantly what the actual policy states, as the policy, not the contract, will govern whether or not there is coverage. It is possible that certificates received will match the contractual requirements, but much of what the policy covers is not reflected on a certificate. Lurking behind the certificate is the policy, which is where the actual coverage lies. The endorsements or exclusions to the policy can make the certificates worthless pieces of paper. There are many exclusions that can cancel coverage for the work a contractor may perform. Height exclusions, residential exclusions, EFIS exclusions and many more, focus on the type of work or materials that the contractor is performing or using. One exclusion, however, focuses on who is insured and that exclusion alone can eliminate all coverage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Laurie A. Stanziale, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Ms. Stanziale may be contacted at lstanziale@foxrothschild.com

    Construction Contract Basics: No Damages for Delay

    May 06, 2024 —
    After WAY too long a hiatus, I am back with another in my series of “Construction Contract Basics” posts. In past posts, I’ve covered venue provisions, attorney fee provisions, and indemnity clauses. In this post, I’ll share a few thoughts (or “musings”) on the topic of so-called “no damages for delay” clauses. These clauses essentially state that a subcontractor’s only remedy for a delay caused by any factor beyond its control (including the fault of the general contractor), after proper notice to the owner or general contractor, is an extension of time to complete the work. These types of clauses generally make it impossible for a subcontractor (if found in a Subcontract) or Contractor (if found in a Prime Contract) that is delayed through no fault of its own to recover any damages relating to the expenses that are inevitably caused by such delays. Such expenses/damages could include additional supervisory time (including more high-dollar superintendent payments), acceleration costs, demobilization/mobilization costs, and other related expenses. These can add up to real money. Couple that with the inevitable liquidated damages or delay damages that will occur should a contractor or subcontractor cause any delay, and this becomes a very one-sided proposition. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Texas Supreme Court Defines ‘Plaintiff’ in 3rd-Party Claims Against Design Professionals

    September 10, 2014 —
    According to attorney Matthew J. Mussalli, writing in Texas Lawyer, “In Jaster v. Comet II Construction on July 3, the Texas Supreme Court ruled how to construe the term ‘plaintiff’ in the context of claims against design professionals and under what circumstances a Certificate of Merit (COM) is required.” Mussalli explained that “the court narrowly construed the relevant statute contained in Chapter 150 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code and held that the plaintiff is just that—the plaintiff; not a defendant/third-party plaintiff nor a cross-claimant. Accordingly, builders, contractors and others who find themselves in the position of defending breach of contract, negligence or other claims and who seek to implead design professionals, need not file a COM with their third-party petitions or cross-claims against architects, engineers or other design professionals.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Disaster-Relief Bill Stalls in Senate

    April 22, 2019 —
    A partisan squabble over funds to help Puerto Rico continue its long recovery and rebuilding from two hurricanes in 2017 has tied up a wide-ranging spending package on Capitol Hill. At stake in the fight are hundreds of millions of dollars for reconstruction and related work around the U.S. Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims Four Years Later: What Have We Learned?

    September 23, 2024 —
    Four and half years ago the COVID-19 pandemic spread around the globe, bringing with it interesting, but challenging, legal problems for construction attorneys. Construction projects ground to a halt. Ever-changing guidance from authorities ranging from the U.S. Department of Labor to local health authorities resulted in a web of evolving obligations for general contractors and subs alike. One of the most closely watched legal questions was the wave of business interruption claims filed by plaintiffs, many of whom owned businesses impacted by government shutdowns. During the opening months of the pandemic, I noted that hundreds of business interruption claims had been filed by insureds across the country. At that time, the only thing certain was that although the outcome remained unknown, virus exclusions were likely to become more likely in the future. Needless to say, much has happened since early 2020. What does the data say about the outcome of business interruption claims? In sum, plaintiffs have had an uphill battle. A helpful resource for analyzing the outcome of business interruption suits is the Covid Coverage Litigation Tracker (“Tracker”), an insurance law analytics tool offered by Penn Carey Law of the University of Pennsylvania. According to its website, “[t]he Covid Coverage Litigation Tracker is a multi-sourced database and dashboard through which to view the unfolding insurance litigation arising out of the pandemic in federal and state courts. Widely cited in briefs, judicial opinions, and the press, the tracker also serves as a proof of concept for new methods to identify, track, and understand emerging case congregations in real time.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McKnight, Fox Rothschild LLP
    Mr. McKnight may be contacted at pmcknight@foxrothschild.com

    Documenting Contract Changes in Construction

    December 07, 2020 —
    Construction projects are almost inevitably subject to changes in the contract. A fundamental understanding of construction changes, how those changes are governed and what is necessary to ensure a complete change are of paramount importance to all parties involved in a construction project. This article is not a treatise on construction contract changes; rather, it provides advice on actions a contractor can take during construction that will help the contractor recover time or money when a contract’s schedule or scope of work needs to be changed. Changes Defined Changes to a construction project affect two broad spheres—timing and scope of work. Changes usually present themselves as either a change order or a change directive. Each may go by a different name depending on the contractual scheme in the project’s prime contract, but they essentially have the same characteristics. The difference between a change order and a change directive is one of agreement. A change order (in the owner-prime contractor context) occurs when the contractor and the owner agree to a change in the timing or scope of work in the contract. Normally, the change order is a written agreement to change the contract and is executed by the contractor and owner. Reprinted courtesy of J.D. Holzheauser, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Holzheauser may be contacted at jdholzheauser@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of