BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing 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


    URGENT: 'Catching Some Hell': Hurricane Michael Slams Into Florida

    Texas Construction Firm Officials Sentenced in Contract-Fraud Case

    Construction Defect Lawsuit Came too Late in Minnesota

    $109-Million Renovation Begins on LA's Willowbrook/Rosa Parks Station

    Home Buyers will Pay More for Solar

    White and Williams Celebrates 125th Anniversary

    Cyber Thieves Phish Away a $735K Payment to a Minnesota Contractor

    Intellectual Property And Employment Law Best Practices: Are You Covering Your Bases In Protecting Construction-Related Trade Secrets?

    ARUP, Rethinking Green Infrastructure

    NY Supreme Court Rules City Not Liable for Defective Sidewalk

    New York Appellate Court Holds Insurers May Suffer Consequences of Delayed Payment of Energy Company Property and Business Interruption Claims

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Recognized Among The Top 50 Construction Law FirmsTM of 2023 by Construction Executive

    Supreme Court Declines to Address CDC Eviction Moratorium

    Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Requirements Adjusted

    Contractor Underpaid Workers, Pocketed the Difference

    Can Businesses Resolve Construction Disputes Outside of Court?

    Judgment for Insurer Reversed Due to Failure to Establish Depreciation

    California’s High Speed Rail Project. Are We Done With the Drama?

    Res Judicata Not Apply to Bar Overlapping Damages in Separate Suits Against Contractor and Subcontractor

    How the Pandemic Pushed the Construction Industry Five Years Into the Future

    Florida Former Public Works Director Fined for Ethics Violation

    Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending

    Responding to Ransomware Learning from Colonial Pipeline

    Giving Insurance Carrier Prompt Notice of Claim to Avoid “Untimely Notice” Defense

    Two Injured in Walkway Collapse of Detroit Apartment Complex

    Colorado Legislature Kills SB 20-138 – A Bill to Extend Colorado’s Statute of Repose

    California’s Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements: Public Works and AB 3018, What You Need to Know

    Construction Industry Groups Challenge DOL’s New DBRA Regulations

    Best Practices for ESI Collection in Construction Litigation

    Homebuilders See Record Bearish Bets on Shaky Recovery

    Putting 3D First, a Model Bridge Rises in Norway

    Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California

    Speculative Luxury Homebuilding on the Rise

    Professional Liability and Attorney-Client Privilege Bulletin: Intra-Law Firm Communications

    Florida Governor Bans Foreign Citizens From Buying Land in Florida

    BHA has a Nice Swing Donates to CDCCF

    Suspend the Work, but Don’t Get Fired

    Appraisal Process Analyzed

    Fine Art Losses – “Canvas” the Subrogation Landscape

    In Florida, Exculpatory Clauses Do Not Need Express Language Referring to the Exculpated Party's Negligence

    Insured's Commercial Property Policy Deemed Excess Over Unobtained Flood Policy

    Court Agrees to Stay Coverage Matter While Underlying State Action is Pending

    We Knew Concrete Could Absorb Carbon—New Study Tells How Much

    The “Ugly” Property Next Door is Ruining My Property Value

    Building on New Risks: Construction in the Age of Greening

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    Construction Industry Outlook: Building a Better Tomorrow

    Decaying U.S. Roads Attract Funds From KKR to DoubleLine

    Power of Workers Compensation Immunity on Construction Project

    Famed NYC Bridge’s Armor Is Focus of Suit Against French Company
    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

    California Supreme Court Rights the “Occurrence” Ship: Unintended Harm Resulting from Intentional Conduct Triggers Coverage Under Liability Insurance Policy

    June 13, 2018 —
    SUMMARY In a ruling that bodes well for policyholders, the California Supreme Court provides much-needed clarity on the question of when a so-called "intentional act" may give rise to insurance coverage under a liability insurance policy. In Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Case No. S23765 (Cal. June 4, 2018), the Court holds that an employer's potential liability for negligent hiring, after its employee allegedly abused a 13-year old student, is the result of an "occurrence" and is thus covered under the employer's liability insurance policy. COURT OPINION The court's opinion dispels the misguided notion that an intentional act resulting in unintended harm is never an "occurrence" and can never trigger coverage. What matters, according to the Court, is that, from the insured's point of view, the consequences of its conduct are "unexpected, unforeseen, or undesigned" - even if the conduct is intentional. And in a concurring opinion, Justice Liu rightfully questions the legitimacy of the notion that intentional conduct cannot trigger coverage, even when it produces an unintended result, unless, in the words of a 1989 appellate court decision, some "additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening occurs that produces the damage." As Justice Liu explains, this intervening "happening" may be something as simple as the insured's mistaken belief that he was acting in self-defense, or that the victim had consented to the insured's conduct. This much-needed clarification restores vitality to the fundamental principle that injuries are "accidental" when they are "unexpected, unforeseen, or undesigned," regardless of their cause. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
    Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com

    Congratulations to Nine Gibbs Giden Partners Selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    January 23, 2023 —
    Nine Gibbs Giden partners have been selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers list for the third year in a row! Congratulations to partners Jason Adams Barbara Gadbois Sara Kornblatt William Locher Christopher Ng (Managing Partner) Glenn Turner, III Ted Senet Richard Wittbrodt Philip Zvonicek Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

    August 30, 2017 —
    On August 9th, in Sirrah Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Wunderlich, the Arizona Supreme Court settled the question about recovery of attorneys’ fees after prevailing on implied warranty claims against a residential contractor. The simple answer is, yes, a homeowner who prevails on the merits can recover the fees they spent to prove that shoddy construction breached the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. Why? Because, as Justice Timmer articulated, “[t]he implied warranty is a contract term.” Although implied, the warranty is legally part of the written agreement in which “a residential builder warrants that its work is performed in a workmanlike manner and that the structure is habitable.” In other words, a claim based on the implied warranty not only arises out of the contract, the claim is actually based on a contract term. Since, in A.R.S. § 12-341.01, Arizona law provides for prevailing parties to recover their fees on claims “arising out of contract” and because the implied warranty is now viewed by the courts as a contract term, homeowners can recover their fees after successfully proving breach of the implied warranty. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rick Erickson, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr Erickson may be contacted at rerickson@swlaw.com

    Colorado Chamber of Commerce CEO Calls for Change to Condo Defect Law

    March 05, 2015 —
    According to the Denver Business Journal, Dennis Houston, president and CEO of the Parker Chamber of Commerce in Colorado, spoke at the state’s capitol recently, calling legislators “to make it harder for attorneys to file class-action lawsuits against condominium builders so that areas like his can attract a workforce of millennials.” Houston and other Chamber of Commerce leaders gathered at the capitol “to lobby for sensible energy policies and construction defects reform, among other things.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss "Redundant Claims" Denied

    June 21, 2024 —
    The insurer's motion to dismiss was more appropriate for an eventual summary judgment motion and was consequently denied. Sivan Lam v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81262 (M.D. Fla. April 12, 2024). Lam suffered a loss to her home due to Hurricane Ian. When only a portion of the claim was paid, Lam sued his insurer, Scottsdale, for breach of contract (Count I) and declaratory relief (Count II). Scottsdale argued that Lam's request for declaratory relief was redundant of her breach of contract claim. The court noted that Rule 12 (b)(6), Fed. R. Civil P., was a vehicle to challenge a claim's sufficiency. Redundancy was not insufficiency, and it was not a ground for dismissal under Rule 12 (b)(6). 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

    Gene Witkin Joins Ross Hart’s Mediation Team at AMCC

    March 01, 2021 —
    AMCC is pleased to announce Gene Witkin joining Ross Hart’s mediation team effective March 1 this year. Prior to joining our esteemed roster of neutrals, Mr. Witkin was active in complex litigation, insurance disputes, and conflict resolution in numerous different states and venues throughout the United States for more than thirty years. In 2000, he co-founded the law firm Menter & Witkin LLP that focused in large part on risk sharing and funding of large lawsuits, which gave him the diverse experience of representing both plaintiffs and defendants, as well as third-party defendants and insurance companies. Mr. Witkin completed mediator training at National Conflict Resolution Center in 2017, and is an AV Rated “Preeminent Attorney” by Martindale-Hubbell (highest rating) and “Super Lawyer” every year since 2015. He may be contacted at g.witkin@amccenter.com or through AMCC at (800) 645-4874. Reprinted courtesy of Arbitration Mediation Conciliation Center (AMCC) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contract Not So Clear in South Carolina Construction Defect Case

    November 07, 2012 —
    The South Carolina Court of Appeals has reversed a partial summary judgment issued by one of the lower courts in the case of The Retreat at Edisto Co-Owners Association v. The Retreat at Edisto. The underlying issues of the case deal with a construction defect complaint. The lower court had concluded “Developer’s ‘First Amendment’ to the Master Deed required the Developer to satisfy the provision in the paragraph labeled ‘Master Deed Amendment or Phase II’ as a condition precedent to its election to proceed with the development of Phase II.” The appeals court found that “the language of the First Amendment to the Master Deed is susceptible to more than one interpretation.” The court additionally concluded that the “Developer presented the requisite scintilla of evidence on the question of its intent in order to establish a genuine issue of material fact. As the material facts were in dispute, the appeals court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner

    March 22, 2018 —
    In Delgadillo v. Television Center, Inc., 2018 No. B270985, the California Court of Appeal examined and refined the Privette doctrine. Mr. Delgadillo worked as a supervisor/window cleaner for a company named Chamberlin Building Services (CBS). Television Center, Inc. (TCI) purchased an existing building and thereafter contracted with CM Cleaning Solutions, Inc. (CMC) to provide cleaning and janitorial services. CMC, on behalf of TCI, solicited a proposal from CBS to wash the building’s windows. CBS and its employees made all decisions about how the window washing would be accomplished. The window washing equipment used on the job was owned, inspected and maintained by CBS. In violation of CBS’ policy, Mr. Delgadillo, attached a safety line to a single connector which was not an acceptable anchor point. The bracket failed and Mr. Delgadillo fell 50 feet to his death. Survivors of Mr. Delgadillo filed suit against TCI for negligence and negligence per se, alleging that Mr. Delgadillo was fatally injured because TCI failed to install structural roof anchors, as required by several statutes. Reprinted courtesy of Bruce Cleeland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Frances Ma, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cleeland may be contacted at bcleeland@hbblaw.com Ms. Ma may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of