BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure 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


    Pennsylvania Finds Policy Triggered When Property Damage Reasonably Apparent

    No Coverage for Homeowner Named as Borrower in Policy but Not as Insured

    Quick Note: Be Careful with Pay if Paid Clauses (Both Subcontractors and General Contractors)

    So, You Have a Judgment Against a California Contractor or Subcontractor. What Next? How Can I Enforce Payment?

    BWB&O Attorneys are Selected to 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    Fed Inflation Goal Is Elusive as U.S. Rents Stabilize: Economy

    The BUILDCHAIN Project Enhances Data Exchange and Transparency in the EU Construction Industry

    Homebuilders Leading U.S. Consumer Stocks: EcoPulse

    Presenting a “Total Time” Delay Claim Is Not Sufficient

    The Court-Side Seat: FERC Reviews, Panda Power Plaints and Sovereign Immunity

    Court Denies Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Collapse Claim

    Pillsbury Insights – Navigating the Real Estate Market During COVID-19

    Agree to Use your “Professional Best"? You may Lose Insurance Coverage! (Law Note)

    Res Judicata Bars Insured from Challenging Insurer's Use of Schedule to Deduct Depreciation from the Loss

    Product Liability Alert: Evidence of Apportionment of Fault Admissible in Strict Products Liability Action

    Housing Advocacy Group Moved to Dissolve New Jersey's Council on Affordable Housing

    Waiver Of Arbitration by Not Submitting Claim to Initial Decision Maker…Really!

    Wall Street’s Favorite Suburban Housing Bet Is Getting Crowded

    Bad Faith Claim For Independent Contractor's Reduced Loss Assessment Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Equipment Costs? It’s a Steal!

    High-Rise Condominium Construction Design Defects, A Maryland Construction Lawyer’s Perspective

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

    Earthquake Hits Mid-Atlantic Region; No Immediate Damage Reports

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rise Most Since February 2006

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    Conflicting Exclusions Result in Duty to Defend

    Cross-Office Team Secures Defense Verdict in Favor of Client in Asbestos Case

    Pulte’s Kitchen Innovation Throw Down

    Candis Jones Named “On the Rise” by Daily Report's Georgia Law Awards

    Congratulations to Associate Madeline Arcellana on Her Selection as a Top Rank Attorney in Southern Nevada!

    Do You Really Want Mandatory Arbitration in Your Construction Contract?

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Coverage for Post-Completion Defects

    Dallas Condo Project to Expand

    Robots on Construction Sites Are Raising Legal Questions

    Maryland Contractor Documents its Illegal Deal and Pays $2.15 Million to Settle Fraud Claims

    Window Installer's Alleged Faulty Workmanship On Many Projects Constitutes Multiple Occurrences

    Las Vegas’ McCarran Tower Construction Issues Delays Opening

    Supreme Court Overrules Longstanding Decision Supporting Collection of Union Agency Fees

    Construction and Contract Issues Blamed for Problems at Anchorage Port

    Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

    A DC Office Building Offers a Lesson in Glass and Sculpture

    Brazil Congress Chiefs Deny Wrongdoing in Petrobras Scandal

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Policyholder Can “Stack” the Limits of Each Primary Policy After Asbestos Claim

    Quarter Four a Good One for Luxury Homebuilder

    Eighth Circuit Affirms Judgment for Bad Faith after Insured's Home Destroyed by Fire

    Anticipatory Repudiation of a Contract — The Prospective Breach

    The Difference Between Routine Document Destruction and Spoliation

    Tiny Houses Big With U.S. Owners Seeking Economic Freedom

    Feds Move To Indict NY Contractor Execs, Developer, Ex-Cuomo Aide

    Sources of Insurance Recovery for Emerging PFAS Claims
    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

    Boston’s Tunnel Project Plagued by Water

    August 11, 2011 —

    Boston’s Tip O’Neil Tunnel, part of the “Big Dig” project, is suffering from water leaks which has lead to millions of dollars of damage, according to an article in the Boston Globe. The report quotes Frank DePaola, the highway administrator, as likening the water leaks to “three garden hoses.” The project’s chief engineer notes that those “three garden hoses” add up to 17 million gallons a year.

    Further, the chief engineer reports notes that the leaks could compromise both safety and structural integrity. Problems have included a 110-pound light fixture that fell in February, ventilation ducts clogged with ice during the winter, and mold in utility rooms and ventilation buildings.

    Read the full story…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Back to Basics: What is a Changes Clause?

    July 18, 2018 —
    The Changes Clause is one of the most important, perhaps the most important, provision in any construction contract. Project designs are rarely perfect. A Changes Clause provides a mechanism for dealing with such imperfections as well as allowing project owners the flexibility to update a project’s design as the project progresses. A good Changes Clause specifies when an owner can change the original scope of the contract, how the parties should resolve the value of the changed scope and when payment should be made to the contractor or a credit given to the owner. A good Changes Clause will also provide a mechanism for the contractor to notify the owner when it believes a change order is due and specify the time within which such notice must be given. For the contractor, failure to pay attention to the requirements of the Changes Clause can lead to forfeiture of the right to seek an adjustment to the contract value or contract completion date. For an Owner, failure to pay attention to and enforce the requirements of the Changes Clause can result in unnecessary payments to the Contractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of J. Cole Phillips, Smith Currie
    Mr. Phillips may be contacted at jcphillips@smithcurrie.com

    Californians Swarm Few Listings Cuts to Affordable Homes

    September 24, 2014 —
    The 160 units at Santa Monica, California’s Belmar Apartments received 4,600 applications ahead of the project’s July opening, a measure of the competition for scarce affordable housing. The Related Cos. project, where two-bedroom units rent for $946 a month, is among the last built with financing from redevelopment agencies, the taxpayer-backed programs that Governor Jerry Brown eliminated three years ago to help balance California’s budget. Without that source of $1 billion a year, the state’s supply of funds for building low- and moderate-income housing is running dry as real estate prices surge. “The abolishment of the redevelopment agencies by Governor Brown is the single biggest problem” for affordable housing, said William Witte, president of Related’s California division, which also is seeking buyers for condominiums next to Belmar with an average price of $2.4 million. “Since there’s little to no help from the federal government, the loss of redevelopment funds is devastating.” Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net; Ms. Brandt may be contacted at nbrandt@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn and Nadja Brandt, Bloomberg

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in 2019 Edition of Who’s Who Legal

    June 10, 2019 —
    Traub Lieberman attorneys Richard K. Traub and Richard J. Bortnick have been recognized in Who’s Who Legal Insurance & Reinsurance: Lawyers. Published by London-based Law Business Research Limited, Who’s Who Legal recognizes the premier legal practitioners in multiple areas of business law. Start in 1996, Who’s Who Legal has recognized over 24,000 private practice lawyers and 2,500 consulting experts from over 150 national jurisdictions across the globe. Traub is a founder and co-managing partner of Traub Lieberman who works in a wide array of fields, including construction, pharmaceutical, product manufacturing, technology, insurance and reinsurance. Bortnick is a Partner in the firm’s New Jersey office who counsels clients on cyber and technology risks, exposures and best practices, cyber breach response management and interaction with regulators. He also handles matters involving directors’ and officers’ liability, professional liability, insurance coverage, and commercial litigation matters. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Private Mediations Do Not Toll The Five-Year Prosecution Statute

    April 28, 2016 —
    If you thought private mediation could toll the five-year period for case prosecution – think again. In a recent decision handed down by the Second District Court of Appeal, the court unequivocally held that voluntary, private mediations do not toll the five-year period before dismissal for failure to bring an action to trial. California Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 sets forth the applicable rule: “[a]n action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant.” Section 1775.7(b) clarifies this rule, stating that the five-year period can be tolled if it is “submitted to mediation” within the final six months of the five-year period. However, the Code is silent with respect to the effect of tolling on public versus private mediations. The Court of Appeal addressed this issue in its recent decision entitled Castillo v. DHL Express (USA) (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 1186. Castillo was an employment class action brought by truck drivers against their employers. Plaintiffs argued that the case was “submitted to mediation” within the meaning of Section 1775.7(b) because the court’s Case Management Order reflected the fact that the parties agreed to pursue mediation. Conversely, defendants argued that the Case Management Statement clearly stated that the parties voluntarily agreed to a private mediation, not a court-ordered mediation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Zachary P. Marks, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger In Focus
    Mr. Marks may be contacted at zmarks@cgdrblaw.com

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Utah for Damage Caused By Faulty Workmanship

    April 03, 2013 —
    The federal district court predicted that the Utah Supreme Court would find that damage to property other than the insured's work product is unexpected and arises from an occurrence. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. AMSCO Windows, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15999 (D. Utah Feb. 5, 2013). The insured, AMSCO Windows, installed windows in new homes constructed in Nevada. A number of homeowners asserted claims against the contractors who built their homes, alleging numerous construction defects, including the windows, and that the defects caused property damage to their homes. The contractors, in turn, asserted claims against AMSCO. The insurer, Cincinnati Insurance Company, filed for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify AMSCO. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Application of Set-Off When a Defendant Settles in Multiparty Construction Dispute

    January 05, 2017 —
    The defense of set-off is an important defense in construction disputes, particularly multiparty disputes. For more information on this defense, please check out this article as it explains the application of set-off in civil disputes in detail. The issue of set-off will come up in a multiparty dispute when a plaintiff settles with one or more of the defendants. The remaining defendant(s) wants the benefit of that settlement to set-off and reduce any judgment against it. An example of this scenario can be found in Escadote I Corp. v. Ocean Three Limited Partnership, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D23a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). In this case, an owner of a condominium unit sued the condominium association, the developer, and the general contractor for water intrusion and mold infestation. The claim against the condominium association was the only claim that entitled the owner to attorney’s fees pursuant to its lawsuit (thus, attorney’s fees were isolated to only that claim against the association). During trial, the owner settled with the association. In entering a settlement, the owner smartly allocated the settlement amount such that $500 was allocated to its principal damages and $374,500 was allocated to its attorney’s fees. The owner then obtained a jury verdict against the contractor and developer for approximately $2M, jointly and severally, and the contractor and developer wanted the entire $375,000 settlement amount with the association to be set-off from the $2M verdict. The trial court set-off the entire $375,000 from the jury verdict when entering judgment. The appellate court reversed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

    Partner Jason Taylor and Senior Associate Danielle Kegley Successful in Appeal of Summary Disposition on Priority of Coverage Dispute in the Michigan Court of Appeals

    December 11, 2023 —
    In this appeal brought before the Michigan Court of Appeals, the appellate court ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s insurance carrier client (the “Carrier” or “Client”), affirming an award of summary disposition in favor of the Carrier in a coverage lawsuit. The coverage lawsuit involved a priority dispute between the Carrier and another insurer over which company’s policy had responsibility to cover the defense of their mutual insured, a heating and cooling contractor (the “Insured”) in an underlying lawsuit alleging carbon monoxide poisoning. The Carrier issued a contractor’s pollution liability policy and the other insurer issued a commercial general liability policy to the Insurer. Both the Carrier and the other insurer filed cross-motions for summary disposition in the trial court on the priority of coverage issue. The trial court granted the Client’s motion, holding that the CGL carrier was the primary insurer based on the language in the policies’ “other insurance” clauses. The trial court rejected the CGL carrier’s argument to apply the “total policy insuring intent” or “closest to the risk” tests—tests which Michigan courts have not adopted. Specifically, the court rejected the CGL carrier’s argument that the Client’s contractor’s pollution liability policy was more specifically tailored to the loss in the underlying lawsuit. The trial court also rejected CGL carrier’s alternative argument that the “other insurance” clauses in the policies were irreconcilable, requiring a pro rata allocation based on the respective limits of the policies. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman and Danielle K. Kegley, Traub Lieberman Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com Ms. Kegley may be contacted at dkegley@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of