BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural 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


    Insurer Must Pay for Matching Siding of Insured's Buildings

    Senate’s Fannie Mae Wind-Down Plan Faces High Hurdles

    Architect Sues School District

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Named to Hudson Valley Magazine’s 2022 Top Lawyers List

    New Proposed Regulations Expand CFIUS Jurisdiction Regarding Real Estate

    The Coronavirus, Zoom Meetings and Now a CCPA Class Action

    Appellate Team Secures Victory in North Carolina Governmental Immunity Personal Injury Matter

    What is the Implied Warranty of Habitability?

    North Carolina Weakened Its Building Codes in 2013

    Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Depreciation Claims

    Quick Note: Discretion in Determining Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    New York Court Temporarily Enjoins UCC Foreclosure Sale

    Roof's "Cosmetic" Damage From Hail Storm Covered

    Courts Will Not Rewrite Your Post-Loss Property Insurance Obligations

    Construction Defects in Roof May Close School

    Termination of Construction Contracts

    Up in Smoke - 5th Circuit Finds No Coverage for Hydrochloric Acid Spill Based on Pollution Exclusion

    Construction Resumes after Defects

    A Discussion on Home Affordability

    Reminder: Just Being Incorporated Isn’t Enough

    Quick Note: Lis Pendens Bond When Lis Pendens Not Founded On Recorded Instrument Or Statute

    Federal Government Partial Shutdown – Picking Up the Pieces

    Study Finds Construction Cranes Vulnerable to Hacking

    Why Do Construction Companies Fail?

    The Basics of Subcontractor Defaults – Key Considerations

    When Must a New York Insurer Turn Over a Copy of the Policy?

    Puerto Rico Grid Restoration Plagued by Historic Problems, New Challenges

    SAFETY Act Part II: Levels of Protection

    Is Everybody Single? More Than Half the U.S. Now, Up From 37% in '76

    EEOC Builds on Best Practice Guidance Regarding Harassment Within the Construction Industry

    Florida Construction Defect Decision Part of Lengthy Evolution

    Taking Care of Infrastructure – Interview with Marilyn Grabowski

    What The U.S. Can Learn from China to Bring Its Buildings to New Heights

    Personal Guarantor Cannot Escape a Personal Guarantee By…

    Your Contract is a Hodgepodge of Conflicting Proposals

    “Positive Limiting Barriers” Are An Open and Obvious Condition, Relieving Owner of Duty to Warn

    Testimony from Insureds' Expert Limited By Motion In Limine

    Issuing Judgment After Confirmation of Appraisal Award Overturned

    Commonwealth Court Holds That Award of Attorney's Fees and Penalties is Mandatory Under the Procurement Code Upon a Finding of Bad Faith

    Virginia Chinese Drywall “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and number of “occurrences”

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

    Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

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

    “A No-Lose Proposition?”

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/1/24) – IMF’s Data on Housing, REITs Versus Private Real Estate, and Suburban Versus Urban Office Property Market

    Don’t Let Construction Problems Become Construction Disputes (guest post)

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

    Designers “Airpocalyspe” Creations

    Designers George Yabu and Glenn Pushelberg Discuss One57’s Ultra-Luxury Park Hyatt

    Not Just Another Client Alert about Cyber-Risk and Effective Cybersecurity Insurance Regulatory Guidance
    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

    Rising Construction Disputes Require Improved Legal Finance

    November 15, 2022 —
    Construction disputes are famously high stakes, and the industry is currently experiencing an uptick in the value and number of disputes resulting from contractual obligations and third-party or force majeure incidents. While this is not entirely surprising given COVID-19’s disruption of global markets and supply chains, the numbers are noteworthy. For example, in 2020 alone, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)—the leading institution for construction disputes, partly because its clauses feature in many FIDIC standard form contracts—registered 194 construction arbitrations, and construction disputes now comprise over 20% of the ICC caseload. In addition to the damage to business outcomes that the underlying disputes may present, parties can quickly spend many millions on legal fees and expenses, as well as technical experts and consultants, if and when those disputes progress through the courts or arbitration. According to Norton Rose’s 2020 Global Construction Disputes Report, the average construction dispute value rose sharply from $30.7 million in 2019 to $54.26 million in 2020. Reprinted courtesy of Apoorva Patel, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Judge Sentences Roofing Contractor Owner in Florida PPP Fraud Case

    July 25, 2021 —
    A federal judge in Fort Myers, Fla., sentenced Casey David Crowther, 35, the owner of a successful Florida roofing contracting company, to 37 months in prison for using fictitious employee lists to obtain a $2.7-million federal pandemic-aid loan and then purchasing a $689,000 boat with the funds. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Floating Cities May Be One Answer to Rising Sea Levels

    August 07, 2022 —
    Thanks to climate change, sea levels are lapping up against coastal cities and communities. In an ideal world, efforts would have already been made to slow or stop the impact. The reality is that climate mitigation remains difficult, and the 40% of humanity living within 60 miles of a coast will eventually need to adapt. One option is to move inland. A less obvious option is to move offshore, onto a floating city. It sounds like a fantasy, but it could real, later if not sooner. Last year, Busan, South Korea's second-largest city, signed on to host a prototype for the world's first floating city. In April, Oceanix Inc., the company leading the project, unveiled a blueprint. Representatives of SAMOO Architects & Engineers Co., one of the floating city's designers and a subsidiary of the gigantic Samsung Electronics Co., estimate that construction could start in a "year or two," though they concede the schedule might be aggressive. “It's inevitable,” Itai Madamombe, co-founder of Oceanix, told me over tea in Busan. “We will get to a point one day where a lot of people are living on water.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Adam Minter, Bloomberg

    Boston Catwalk Collapse Injures Three Workers

    May 10, 2022 —
    The collapse of a catwalk in a defunct, 124-year-old power plant building in Boston on May 4 injured three workers in the latest in a spate of serious construction accidents in the city and its environs. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ninth Circuit Rules Supreme Court’s Two-Part Test of Implied Certification under the False Claims Act Mandatory

    May 13, 2019 —
    For those contractors in the government arena, read on. The False Claims Act (“FCA”) was enacted to deter knowingly fraudulent actions by contractors which resulted in a loss of property to the Government. Intent to defraud with resulting financial hardship was required. Contrary to popular misconception, the statute was not designed to punish all false submissions to the Government simply because those submissions, or claims, are later found to be false. The statute’s inclusion of the requisite element of knowledge is consistent with this notion:
    1. A defendant must submit a claim for payment to the Government;
    2. the claim must be false or fraudulent;
    3. the defendant must have known the claim was fraudulent when it was submitted (also known as scienter); and
    4. the claim must have caused the Government to pay out money.
    See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). Despite these explicit elements (in addition to common law elements of fraud), over the last two decades, contractors have seen ever-expanding theories of FCA recovery presented by qui tam plaintiffs and the Government. For example, under the FCA, the false “claim” evolved over time: the claim no longer needs to be an express false claim (i.e. the truthfulness of the claim is a direct condition of payment); the claim can be “implied” misrepresentation or “half-truth”. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Meredith Thielbahr, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Ms. Thielbahr may be contacted at mthielbahr@grsm.com

    No Coverage Under Installation Policy When Read Together with Insurance Application

    January 16, 2024 —
    A recent case out of the Eleventh Circuit denied an underground contractor’s claim under what appears to be a commercial property installation floater policy (inland marine coverage) that covers the contractor’s materials. Whereas a builder’s risk policy is more expansive, an installation floater is narrower and can provide protection to a contractor for materials and equipment in transit, stored, or being installed subject to the terms of the installation floater policy. It can provide coverage to a trade subcontractor for materials that aren’t covered by builder’s risk. In Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Talcon Group, LLC, 2023 WL 8798053 (11th Cir. 2023), an underground utility contractor that had a general contractor’s license had an installation policy that provided coverage “only for underground utility operations and the site development work tied to those operations.” Talcon Group, supra, at *1. The utility contractor was constructing two residential homes that was on land owned by an affiliated family entity. During construction of the residential homes, a wildfire destroyed the homes prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy. The utility contractor submitted a notice of loss to its insurance carrier that provided the installation policy. The carrier denied the claim because the construction of the homes was NOT the same type of work as the installation of underground utilities which was covered. An insurance coverage lawsuit ensued. 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

    Who Says You Can’t Choose between Liquidated Damages or Actual Damages?

    October 11, 2017 —
    In Colorado, courts enforce liquidated damages provisions if three elements are satisfied: (1) the parties intended to liquidate damages; (2) the amount of liquidated damages was a reasonable estimate of the presumed actual damages caused by a breach; and (3) at the time of contracting, it was difficult to ascertain the amount of actual damages that would result from a breach. But what happens when a contract gives a party a right to choose between liquidated damages or actual damages? This seems troublesome because it allows a party to set the floor for their damages without limitation if actual damages exceed the contractual amount. As a matter of first impression, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed this issue in Ravenstar, LLC v. One Ski Hill Place, LLC, 401 P.3d 552 (Colo. 2017). In Ravenstar, plaintiffs contracted to buy condominiums from a developer. As part of their contracts, plaintiffs deposited earnest money and construction deposits equal to 15% of each unit’s purchase price. Plaintiffs breached their contract by failing to obtain financing and failing to close by the closing date. Each contract’s damages provision provided that if a purchaser defaulted, the developer had the option to retain all or some of the deposits as liquidated damages or, alternatively, to pursue actual damages and apply the deposits to that award. After plaintiffs defaulted, the developer chose to keep plaintiffs’ deposits as liquidated damages. Plaintiffs sued for return of their deposits. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Walton, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Walton may be contacted at kwalton@swlaw.com

    Eighth Circuit Rejects Retroactive Application of Construction Defect Legislation

    September 17, 2014 —
    The Eighth Circuit refused to retroactively apply an Arkansas statute establishing coverage for faulty workmanship. J-McDaniel Const. Co., Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14911 (8th Cir. Aug. 4, 2014). The homeowners sued J-McDaniel for faulty workmanship in constructing their home. The defective construction work was performed by subcontractors. Mid-Continent refused to defend or indemnify J-McDaniel. The insured sued Mid-Continent. The district court dismissed the claim pursuant to Essex Ins. Co. v. Holder, 261 S.W. 3d 456, 460 (Ark. 2008). In Essex, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that defective workmanship resulting in damages only to the work product itself was not an occurrence. Although The Arkansas legislature overruled Essex by statute, the district court found that the Arkansas case law barred retroactive application of the statute. 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