BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying 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


    Court Throws Wet Blanket On Prime Contractor's Attorneys' Fees Request In Prompt Payment Case

    Brenda Radmacher to Speak at Construction Super Conference 2024

    NY Is Set To Sue US EPA Over ‘Completion’ of PCB Removal

    Outcry Over Peru’s Vast Graft Probe Prompts Top Lawyer to Quit

    Pay Inequities Are a Symptom of Broader Gender Biases, Studies Show

    General Liability Alert: A Mixed Cause of Action with Protected and Non-Protected Activity Not Subject to Anti-SLAPP Motion

    Court of Appeal Shines Light on Collusive Settlement Agreements

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Best Lawyers in America ® 2016

    Baltimore Bridge Collapse Occurred After Ship Lost Power Multiple Times

    Turkey to Start Building 200,000 Homes in March, Erdogan Says

    Recent Opinions Clarify Enforceability of Pay-if-Paid Provisions in Construction Contracts

    Fed. Judge Blocks Release of Records on FIU Bridge Collapse, Citing NTSB Investigation

    Repairing One’s Own Work and the one Year Statute of Limitations to Sue a Miller Act Payment Bond

    Florida Court of Appeals Holds Underlying Tort Case Must Resolve Before Third-Party Spoliation Action Can Be Litigated

    Caltrans to Speak before California Senate regarding Bay Bridge Expansion

    House Panel Subpoenas VA Documents on Colorado Project

    U.S. Supreme Court Allows Climate Change Lawsuits to Proceed in State Court

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers – Two Recognized as Rising Stars

    Wendel Rosen Attorneys Named as Fellows of the Construction Lawyers Society of America

    Boston Team Obtains Complete Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in Professional Liability Matter

    The Proposed House Green New Deal Resolution

    Homebuilding Down in North Dakota

    Eleventh Circuit Finds No “Property Damage” Where Defective Component Failed to Cause Damage to Other Non-Defective Components

    With Wildfires at a Peak, “Firetech” Is Joining Smart City Lineups

    Sierra Pacific v. Bradbury Goes Unchallenged: Colorado’s Six-Year Statute of Repose Begins When a Subcontractor’s Scope of Work Ends

    Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Calls for CFPB Investigation into Tenant Screening Businesses

    On to Year Thirteen for Blog

    Velazquez Framing, LLC v. Cascadia Homes, Inc. (Take 2) – Pre-lien Notice for Labor Unambiguously Not Required

    Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

    Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Harmon Towers

    Patrick Haggerty Promoted to Counsel

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers®

    Just Because You Caused it, Doesn’t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine

    Nomos LLP Partners Recognized in Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

    Employee Exclusion Bars Coverage for Wrongful Death of Subcontractor's Employee

    Housing Sales Hurt as Fewer Immigrants Chase Owner Dream

    Is the Issuance of a City Use Permit Referable? Not When It Is an Administrative Act

    Rhode Island Examines a Property Owner’s Intended Beneficiary Status and the Economic Loss Doctrine in the Context of a Construction Contract

    Chambers USA 2020 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Mitigating FCRA Risk Through Insurance

    Create a Culture of Safety to Improve Labor Recruitment Efforts

    Governor Inslee’s Recent Vaccination Mandate Applies to Many Construction Contractors and their Workers

    Bridge Disaster - Italy’s Moment of Truth

    Fire Damages Unfinished Hospital Tower at NYU Langone Medical Center

    Insured Versus Insured Clause Does Not Bar Coverage

    Ruling Finds Builder and Owners at Fault in Construction Defect Case

    Unrelated Claims Against Architects Amount to Two Different Claims

    Labor Under the Miller Act And Estoppel of Statute of Limitations

    Construction on the Rise in Washington Town

    Claim for Consequential Damages Survives Motion to Dismiss
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (11/02/22) – Flexible Workspaces, Sustainable Infrastructure, & Construction Tech

    November 15, 2022 —
    This week’s round-up dives into digital transformation in the construction industry, renewed interest in flexible workspaces, and how the infrastructure sector can become more resilient and sustainable, both economically and environmentally.
    • Digital transformation in the construction industry is top of mind for many firms, but most are still in the beginning and intermediate phases of implementing new digital capabilities. (Ursula Cullen, PBC Today)
    • Companies could mitigate climate hazards and build resilience into the life cycle of their infrastructure and capital projects by facilitating a comprehensive approach to understanding risk. (Brodie Boland and Daphne Luchtenberg, McKinsey & Company)
    • The use of drones in project planning, as well as the incorporation of other technology, is proposed as an alternative solution to addressing the construction industry’s labor shortage. (Shaun Passley, For Construction Pros)
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Statute of Limitations and Bad Faith Claims: Factors to Consider

    May 16, 2022 —
    How much time do our clients have to bring a bad faith action against an insurer? Although we are not frequently asked this question, it is one that we constantly analyze before asserting a bad faith claim. To answer this question, we look to the statute of limitations, which is a law passed by a state legislative body that sets the maximum amount of time for a party to bring a claim based upon a particular cause of action. For policyholders, knowing which statute of limitations applies to their bad faith claim is critical because it indicates whether it is possible to initiate legal proceedings. In addition, it determines the amount in damages available in case of a successful resolution. Statute of Limitations in Breach of Contract vs. Tort Claims One key determinant of a statute of limitations for bad faith is whether the claim is brought as a tort or a breach of contract action. The consequence of framing bad faith as a tort is that a policyholder is not just limited to contract damages. The policyholder can also receive recourse for emotional distress, pain, suffering, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and other damages that the court may consider appropriate. Unfortunately, however, not every jurisdiction allows plaintiffs to bring bad faith actions as tort claims. While, for example, courts in California, Colorado, and Connecticut allow bad faith claims sounding in tort, courts in jurisdictions such as Tennessee do not. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anastasiya Collins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. Collins may be contacted at ACollins@sdvlaw.com

    Contractual Impartiality Requires an Appraiser to be Unbiased, Disinterested, and Unswayed by Personal Interest

    June 01, 2020 —
    On June 24, 2019, the Colorado Supreme Court held that when a contract or insurance policy requires an “impartial” appraisal, the appraiser for a party cannot be an advocate for that party.[1] In this situation, the appraiser must be unbiased, disinterested, without prejudice, and unswayed by personal interest. Id. Owners Insurance Company (“Owners”) issued a policy to the Dakota Station II Condominium Association, Inc. (“Association”) that represents a 49-building multifamily residential property in Jefferson County, Colorado. Concerning loss conditions, the policy includes an appraisal provision requiring that, in the event of property appraisal, “each party will select a competent and impartial appraiser.” The parties would then select an umpire or have one appointed by the court. Any agreement as to the values reached by two of the three would bind them all. On May 24, 2012, the Association made a storm-damage roofing claim to Owners for $1.33 million. The parties could not agree on the amount of the loss and the Association invoked the policy’s appraisal process. The Association retained Scott Benglen as its contingent-fee cap appraiser. Mr. Benglen retained Laura Haber as a policy and damage expert, who appraised the roof loss at $2.55 million and the total replacement at $4.3 million.[2] Owners’ appraiser, Mark Burns, submitted the loss at $1.86 million with the replacement cost award of $2.3 million. The umpire, Honorable James Miller, adopted Owners’ estimates in four of the six categories, awarding just over $3 million to the Association. Id. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. Ingham may be contacted at ingham@hhmrlaw.com

    Release Language Extended To Successor Entity But Only Covered “Known” Claims

    August 06, 2019 —
    A recent case contains valuable analysis that has impact on whether a “successor” entity will be bound by a settlement agreement it was not a direct party to. This case contains arguments for contractors that can be raised in a number of different contexts if it is sued by a successor or related entity. The same case discusses the difference between releasing a party for “known” claims without releasing the same party for “unknown” claims. This is an important distinction because unknown claims refer to latent defects so a release that only releases a party for known claims is not releasing that party for latent defects. In MBlock Investors, LLC v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1432d (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), an owner hired a contractor to construct a project. At completion, the owner transferred the project to an affiliated entity (collectively, the “Owner”). The contractor sued the Owner for unpaid work, the Owner claimed construction defects with the work, and a settlement was entered into that released the contractor for KNOWN claims. Thereafter, the Owner defaulted on the construction loan and agreed to convey the property through a deed in lieu of foreclosure to an entity created by the lender (the “Lender Entity”). 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

    Are Untimely Repairs an “Occurrence” Triggering CGL Coverage?

    January 17, 2023 —
    All Class A commercial contractors in Virginia are required to have a minimum level of Commercial General Liability (CGL) coverage. As a general rule, this insurance is there for damage to property or persons arising from an “occurrence” that is covered by the policy. Many cases that are litigated relating to coverage for certain events under a CGL policy turn on the definition of “occurrence” and whether the event leading to a request for coverage constitutes an “occurrence.” A recent case in Fairfax County, Virginia, Erie Insurance Exchange v. Spalding Enterprises, et al., is just such a case. In the Spalding Enterprises case, the Court considered the following scenario. A homeowner, Mr. Yen contracted with Spalding Enterprises to fix some fire damage at his home. Spalding promised the repairs would be complete in October of 2019. However, after Mr. Yen paid a $300,000.00 deposit, Spalding Enterprises stated that the work would not be completed until November of 2019. Yen then fired Spalding Enterprises and sued for breach of contract, constructive fraud, and violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. Spalding Enterprises sought coverage from Erie Insurance for the claim and Erie denied coverage and sought a declaratory judgment that the events alleged in the Complaint by Mr. Yen did not fall under the definition of “occurrence” in the CGL policy held by Spalding Enterprises. 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

    No Duty to Indemnify Where No Duty to Defend

    February 08, 2021 —
    The Montana Supreme Court held that because there was no duty to defend the insureds' intentional acts, the insurer had no duty to defend. Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Wessel, 2020 Mont. LEXIS 2617 (Mont. Dec. 22, 2020). The insureds' property was accessed by Turk Road. Turk Road was also used by the neighbors to access their land. The insureds asked for permission to snowmobile across the neighbors' property. Permission was denied because the property was in a conservation easement which prohibited motorised used. The insureds' thereafter retaliated by not allowing the neighbors to use Turk Road. The neighbors then purchased an easement from another landowners to construct a new driveway which did not traverse the insureds' property. The insureds built snow berms and gates, felled trees, and created other obstacles to prevent the neighbors from using the new driveway. Physical threats were also made by the insureds. 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

    No Coverage for Additional Insured for Construction Defect Claim

    July 02, 2024 —
    The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurers, finding there was no coverage for the additional insured on a construction defect claim. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co. v. Walsh Construction. Co., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10285 (7th Cir. April 29, 2024). The City of Chicago hired Walsh Construction Company as general contractor for the Facade and Circulation Enhancement (FACE) project at O'Hare International Airport. The FACE project involved building and installing a new canopy for Terminals 1, 2 and 3. The project also called for the construction of a steel and glass curtain wall that would be integrated with the curtain wall at Terminals 2 and 3. Walsh contracted with Carlo Steel Corporation to manufacture the steel and curtain wall. Carlo, in turn, subcontracted with LB Steel, LLC to manufacture and install the steel elements of the wall, which included steel columns, hammer heads and box girders. The subcontract between Carlo and LB Steel included an indemnity provision that required LB Steel to indemnify Carlo and Walsh for any property damage resulting from LB Steel's negligent performance. 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

    Maybe Supervising Qualifies as Labor After All

    May 22, 2023 —
    Remember back in 2021 when I “mused” about Dickson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland et al.? Remember how the Eastern District of Virginia held that mere supervision does not qualify as “labor” under the federal Miller Act? Well, the 4th Circuit recently weighed in on the appeal of that case and had some interesting things to say about the definition of labor. As a quick reminder, Plaintiff worked as a project manager on a project to repair and upgrade certain stairs at the Pentagon. Plaintiff subcontracted with prime contractor Forney Enterprises Inc. on this project. On Dec. 20, 2018, the prime contract was terminated. Plaintiff filed the Miller Act suit on Feb. 5, 2020. Dickson alleged that Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, or F&D, must pay him, pursuant to the Miller Act, the amount he is owed for the labor he performed on the project. Now before the district court were cross-motions for summary judgment. In evaluating Plaintiff’s claims, the district court examined the defendant’s claims that (1) Dickson’s work did not qualify as “Labor” under the Miller Act, and (2) that the suit was not timely filed. The Eastern District of Virginia court agreed with both arguments. 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