BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims 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


    ASCE Statement on Calls to Suspend the Federal Gas Tax

    Blueprint for Change: How the Construction Industry Should Respond to the FTC’s Ban on Noncompetes

    Reminder: Your Accounting and Other Records Matter

    Building Permits Up in USA Is a Good Sign

    An Era of Legends

    When “Substantially Similar” Means “Fundamentally Identical”: Delaware Court Enforces Related Claim Provision to Deny D&O Coverage for Securities Class Action

    Los Angeles Tower Halted Over Earthquake and other Concerns

    Pending Home Sales in U.S. Increase Less Than Forecast

    Certified Question Asks Washington Supreme Court Whether Insurer is Bound by Contradictory Certificate of Insurance

    A UK Bridge That Is a Lesson on How to Build Infrastructure

    Did New York Zero Tolerance Campaign Improve Jobsite Safety?

    Mediating Contract Claims and Disputes at the ASBCA

    The Independent Tort Doctrine (And Its Importance)

    Construction Project Bankruptcy Law

    Ninth Circuit Issues Pro-Contractor Licensing Ruling

    City Wonders Who’s to Blame for Defective Wall

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    “Made in America Week” Highlights Requirements, Opportunities for Contractors and Suppliers

    The Treasures Inside Notre Dame Cathedral

    Canada Home Resales Post First Fall in Eight Months

    Homebuilding Held Back by Lack of Skilled Workers

    Actual Cost Value Includes Depreciation of Repair Labor Costs

    Five Reasons to Hire Older Workers—and How to Keep Them

    Hawaii Court Finds No Bad Faith, But Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Survives Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Action

    Puerto Rico Grid Restoration Plagued by Historic Problems, New Challenges

    NAHB Speaks Out Against the Clean Water Act Expansion

    15 Wilke Fleury Lawyers Recognized in 2020 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

    Want to Make Your Jobsite Safer? Look to the Skies.

    With No Evidence of COVID-19 Being Present, DC Trial Court Finds No Claim for Business Interruption

    Angels Among Us

    Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability Cannot Be Disclaimed or Waived Under Any Circumstance

    Drought Dogs Developers in California's Soaring Housing Market

    Patti Santelle Honored by Rutgers School of Law with Arthur E. Armitage Sr. Distinguished Alumni Award

    Bats, Water, Soil, and Bridges- an Engineer’s dream

    What California’s COVID-19 Reopening Means for the Construction Industry

    Architect Plans to 3D-Print a Two-Story House

    Who is Responsible for Construction Defect Repairs?

    Green Construction Trends Contractors Can Expect in 2019

    Manhattan Vacancies Rise in Epicenter Shift: Real Estate

    'Right to Repair' and Fixing Equipment in a Digital Age

    Supreme Court Finds Insurance Coverage for Intentional (and Despicable) Act of Contractor’s Employee

    Haight Welcomes Elizabeth Lawley

    Is Your Contract “Mission Essential?” Recovering Costs for Performing During a Force Majeure Event Under Federal Regulations

    Jobsite Safety Should Be Every Contractors' Priority

    William Lyon to Acquire RSI Communities

    Hurricane Damage Not Covered for Home Owner Not Named in Policy

    Government’s Termination of Contractor for Default for Failure-To-Make Progress

    Trump Administration Waives Border Wall Procurement Rules

    Legislative Update – The CSLB’s Study Under SB465

    Fifth Circuit Certifies Eight-Corners Duty to Defend Issue to Texas Supreme Court
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Fairfield's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Eleventh Circuit Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims

    November 15, 2021 —
    The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer on the general contractor's claims for damages due to faulty workmanship. Tricon Dev. of Brevard v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27317 (11th Cir. Sept .10, 2021). Tricon was the general contractor for a condominium project in Florida. Tricon hired a subcontractor to fabricate and install metal railings for the project. The subcontractor was insured by Nautilus under two CGL policies. The policies had endorsements to add Tricon as an additional insured. The subcontractor fabricated some of the railings, but they had defects and damage. Further they were not installed properly and did not meet the project's specifications. Tricon found another manufacturer to fabricate new railings to satisfy the projects' requirements. Tricon agreed to pay the cost of removing the subcontractor's railings and fabricating and installing new ones. If submitted a claim to Nautilus to cover these costs. 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

    Maui Wildfire Cleanup Could Cost $1B and Take One Year

    September 18, 2023 —
    Hawaii Gov. Josh Green and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) have estimated at $1 billion the cost of cleanup after the Maui wildfires—which started Aug. 8 and killed at least 115 people and destroyed more than 2,200 structures. Officials planning the rebuilding of the parts of West Maui devastated by the wildfires are emphasizing safety and residents’ wishes over speed. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court of Appeal Shines Light on Collusive Settlement Agreements

    October 21, 2015 —
    In Diamond v. Reshko, (filed 8/20/2015, No. A139251) the California Court of Appeal, First District, held that a defendant was entitled to introduce evidence at trial reflecting amounts paid by co-defendants in settlement of a plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff, Christine Diamond, was injured during an automobile accident that occurred while she was a passenger in a taxi driven by Amir Mansouri. Christine, and her husband Andrew, filed suit against Mr. Mansouri, the Yellow Cab Collective (“Yellow Cab”), and the driver of the vehicle that collided with the taxi, Serge Reshko. Before trial, Mansouri and the Yellow Cab Collective settled with Plaintiffs, but agreed to appear and participate as defendants at the jury trial of the action. Mansouri and Yellow Cab paid a total of $400,000 to Plaintiffs in settlement. Reshko filed a pre-trial motion seeking an order permitting Reshko to admit evidence of the settlement between Plaintiffs and the other defendants. The trial court refused to rule on the motion before trial. Ultimately, evidence of the settlement between Plaintiffs, Mansouri and Yellow Cab was excluded during trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs in the total amount of $745,778, finding Mansouri 40 percent at fault, and Reshko 60 percent at fault. The Trial Court entered judgment against Reshko in the sum of $406,698. Reshko appealed the judgment. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that evidence of the settlement should have been admitted at trial because the settling defendant’s position should be revealed to the court and jury to avoid committing a fraud on the court, and in order to permit the trier of fact to properly weigh the settling defendant’s testimony. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Consider Manner In Which Loan Agreement (Promissory Note) Is Drafted

    March 02, 2020 —
    Consider who you loan money too and, perhaps more importantly, the manner in which your loan agreements (promissory notes) are drafted. By way of example, in what appears to be a failed construction project in Conrad FLB Management, LLC v. Diamond Blue International, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2897a (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), a group of lenders lent money to a limited liability company (“Company”) in connection with the development of a project. Promissory notes were executed by Company and executed by its managing member as a representative of Company, and not in a personal capacity. Company, however, did not own the project. Rather, an affiliated entity owned the project (“Affiliated Entity”). Affiliated Entity had the same managing member as Company. Once the Company received the loan proceeds, it transferred the money to Affiliated Entity, presumably for purposes of the project. The loans were not repaid and the lenders sued Company, Affiliated Entity, and its managing member, in a personal capacity. The lenders claimed they were all jointly liable under the promissory notes. Although the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the lenders, this was reversed on appeal as to the Affiliated Entity and the managing member because there was a factual issue as to whether they should be bound by the note executed on behalf of Company. First, Florida Statute s. 673.4011(1) provides that “a person is not liable on a promissory note unless either (a) the person signed the note, or (b) the person is represented by an agent who signed the note.” Conrad FLB Management, LLC, supra. Affiliated Entity is a separate entity and did not execute the note. 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

    Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

    August 06, 2019 —
    Arkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4] In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

    No Additional Insured Coverage Under Umbrella Policy

    March 12, 2014 —
    The additional insured was not covered under a property policy for an injury occurring after work was completed. Lewark v. Davis Door Servs., 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 341 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2014). Public Storage, Inc. hired Davis Door Service Inc. to perform work at its facilities. The master agreement required Davis Door to maintain a CGL policy that insured Public Storage "during the entire progress of the work." Davis Door secured a CGL policy with American Economy. It also took out an umbrella liability policy with American States. After Davis Door completed work on a door, Terrie Lewark injury her back opening the door. She sued Public Storage and Davis Door. Lewar and Public Storage settled. Public Storage assigned to Lewark its rights under the umbrella policy with American States. Lewark then sued Davis Door and American States. The trial court found that Public Storage was not an additional insured under the American States umbrella policy. 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

    NY Construction Safety Firm Falsely Certified Workers, Says Manhattan DA

    March 25, 2024 —
    A New York-based construction safety firm and 25 individuals were indicted Feb. 28 for allegedly operating a bogus safety training school, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office says. The firm, Valor Security & Investigations is also linked to “endangering the life” of Ivan Frias, who fell to his death from the 15th floor of a New York City construction site in 2022. Reprinted courtesy of Johanna Knapschaefer, Engineering News-Record Ms. Knapschaefer may be contacted at knapj@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Coverage Where Cracks in Basement Walls Do Not Amount to Sudden Collapse

    January 10, 2018 —

    In another of a series of collapse cases arising out of Connecticut, the federal district court found there was no coverage for the homeowner's cracked basement wall caused by defective concrete. Liston-Smith v. CSAA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206211 (D. Conn. Dec. 15, 2017).

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Tred Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com