BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expert
    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


    Construction Law Alert: Concrete Supplier Botches Concrete Mix, Gets Thrashed By Court of Appeal for Trying to Blame Third Party

    World’s Biggest Crane Gets to Work at British Nuclear Plant

    Protecting and Perfecting Your Mechanics Lien when the Property Owner Files Bankruptcy

    Reports of the Death of SB800 are Greatly Exaggerated – The Court of Appeal Revives Mandatory SB800 Procedures

    Gary Bague Elected Chairman of ALFA International’s Board of Directors

    Nine Gibbs Giden Partners Listed in Southern California Super Lawyers 2022

    The New “White Collar” Exemption Regulations

    Commercial Construction Heating Up

    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Insuring the Indemnitor's Obligation

    Washington Supreme Court Expands Contractor Notice Obligations

    Veterans Day – Thank You for Your Service

    Indemnification Provisions Do Not Create Reciprocal Attorney’s Fees Provisions

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    Amos Rex – A Museum for the Digital Age

    Umbrella Policy Must Drop Down to Assist with Defense

    Court of Appeal Shines Light on Collusive Settlement Agreements

    California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive

    Bert Hummel Appointed to Chief Justice’s Commission on Professionalism

    Gen Xers Choose to Rent rather than Buy

    Colorado Finally Corrects Thirty-Year Old Flaw in Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Condominium Construction Defect Resolution in the District of Columbia

    EPA Coal Ash Cleanup Rule Changes Send Utilities, Agencies Back to Drawing Board

    New Hampshire Applies Crete/Sutton Doctrine to Bar Subrogation Against College Dormitory Residents

    Settling with Some, But Not All, of the Defendants in a Construction Defect Case

    Court Again Defines Extent of Contractor’s Insurance Coverage

    Verdict In Favor Of Insured Homeowner Reversed For Improper Jury Instructions

    Is Construction Defect Notice under Florida Repair Statute a Suit?

    “Rip and Tear” Damage Remains Covered Under CGL Policy as “Accident”—for Now.

    Florida trigger

    Ahlers & Cressman’s Top 10 Construction Industry Contract Provisions

    Pile Test Likely for Settling Millennium Tower

    California Rejects Judgments By Confession Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1132

    Construction Contract Terms Matter. Be Careful When You Draft Them.

    Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Grupo Mexico Spill Sparks Public Scrutiny of $150 Million Mop-Up

    New York Public Library’s “Most Comprehensive Renovation” In Its History

    Craig Holden Named Top 100 Lawyer by Los Angeles Business Journal

    Florida High-Rise for Sale, Construction Defects Possibly Included

    Morrison Bridge Allegedly Crumbling

    Mich. AG Says Straits of Mackinac Tunnel Deal Unconstitutional

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “I Never Had a Chance”

    The New Jersey Theme Park Where Kids’ Backhoe Dreams Come True

    Yet ANOTHER Reason not to Contract without a License

    More thoughts on Virginia Mechanic’s Liens

    Haight’s 2020 San Diego Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Court Says No to Additional Lawyer in Las Vegas Fraud Case

    Water Damage: Construction’s Often Unnoticed Threat

    Policyholders' Coverage Checklist in Times of Coronavirus

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TX
    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

    Florida Supreme Court Decision Limits Special Damages Presented to Juries

    July 18, 2022 —
    Tampa, Fla. (June 16, 2022) - Verdicts in personal injury cases are greatly impacted by the amount of medical expenses a plaintiff can present to juries. In Florida, collateral sources of compensation, such as insurance payments, are generally not disclosed to juries. However, caselaw also typically does not allow plaintiffs to recover the gross amount of medical bills, but instead the amount after insurance adjustments. For decades, Florida courts have considered whether the bills are reduced by the adjustments before or after verdict. The recent Florida Supreme Court decision in Dial v. Calusa Palms Master Association, Inc., No. SC21-43 (Fla. Apr. 28, 2022), has standardized the way past medical expenses are presented to juries where the plaintiff was treated under Medicare. As is commonly understood, the original amount billed by medical providers is far different than the amount actually paid. Most treatment is subject to some private or government insurance and those insurers typically have negotiated rates for treatment. Thus, the bills are reduced subject to insurance contractual adjustments and the resulting net bills are far lower. For decades, defense attorneys have argued that juries should hear only the lower net amount. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John Rine, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Rine may be contacted at John.Rine@lewisbrisbois.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

    Hovnanian Increases Construction Defect Reserves for 2012

    January 06, 2012 —

    In their fourth quarter earnings call, executives of Hovnanian Enterprises made some projections for investors, covering the company’s plans for 2012. During the call, Ara K. Hovnanian, the firm’s CEO, discussed their reserves to meet construction defect claims. The firm does an annual actuarial study of their construction defect reserves.

    Mr. Hovnanian noted that there have been no changes for the past several years, but this year they are increasing their reserves by about $6.3 million. Additionally, the firm has added $2.5 million to their legal reserves. Mr. Hovnanian stated “we do not anticipate that changes of this magnitude will be recurring as we look forward to 2012.”

    Read the full story…

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

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

    October 16, 2018 —
    Panama City, Fla. (AP) -- Powerful Hurricane Michael slammed into the Florida Panhandle with terrifying winds of 155 mph Wednesday, splintering homes and submerging neighborhoods before continuing its destructive march inland across the Southeast. It was the most powerful hurricane to hit the continental U.S. in nearly 50 years and at least one death was reported during its passage. Supercharged by abnormally warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the Category 4 storm crashed ashore in the early afternoon near Mexico Beach, a tourist town about midway along the Panhandle, a 200-mile (320-kilometer) stretch of white-sand beach resorts, fishing towns and military bases. After it ravaged the Panhandle, Michael entered south Georgia as a Category 3 hurricane — the most powerful in recorded history for that part of the neighboring state. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    Law Firm's Business Income, Civil Authority Claim Due to Hurricanes Survives Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    December 20, 2021 —
    The insurer was unsuccessful in moving for summary judgment on the insured's claim for loss of business income and civil authority coverage due to losses caused by two hurricanes. Townsley v. Ohio Security Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202698 (W.D. La. Oct. 20, 2021). Hurricane Laura struck southeast Louisiana on August 27, 2020 and Hurricane Delta made landfall in the same area on October 9, 2020. Both hurricanes caused property damage and an interruption of business for the insured law firm. Power outages and mandatory evacuation orders caused by both storms created a loss of income for the law firm. Ohio Security denied coverage under the business income, extra expense, and civil authority provisions. The law firm sued and Ohio Security moved for summary judgment. From the undisputed facts, the court could not determine the law firm's entitlement to business income and extra expense coverage, so the motion was denied for these claims. 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

    Fifth Circuit Rules that Settlements in Underlying Action Constitute "Other Insurance"

    April 17, 2019 —
    The Fifth Circuit ruled that settlements between an insured and its subcontractors qualified as “other insurance” to the extent those settlements were used to pay for damages covered by an excess insurance policy. Policyholders should note the outcome of this case as it demonstrates the significant impact that settlements can have on coverage. Satterfield & Pontikes Construction, Inc. v. Amerisure Mutual Ins. Co.1 was the result of a construction project gone wrong. Zapata County, Texas hired Satterfield & Pontikes (“S&P”) as a general contractor for the construction of a courthouse building. When the project did not go as planned, Zapata County terminated S&P, hired new subcontractors to complete the project, and sued S&P. S&P, in turn, sought indemnification from its subcontractors, who were contractually obligated to indemnify S&P and procure insurance for any damage the subcontractors caused at the project. S&P also sought coverage from its own primary insurers, American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (“AGLIC”) and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company (“Amerisure”), and its excess insurer, U.S. Fire Insurance Company (“U.S. Fire”) who provided liability coverage for S&P’s potential liabilities at the project. The policies contained exclusions for losses arising from mold and did not provide coverage for attorney’s fees or similar legal costs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Casanova may be contacted at tlc@sdvlaw.com

    Judicial Economy Disfavors Enforcement of Mandatory Forum Selection Clause

    December 16, 2023 —
    Mandatory forum (venue) selection provisions are generally construed in favor of enforceability. Parties agreed to the forum for disputes so why not enforce them, right? A recent federal district court case out of the Eastern District of Louisiana exemplifies an exception grounded in judicial economy which disfavors the enforceability of mandatory forum selection provisions. Keep in mind that this judicial economy exception is fairly limited but the fact pattern below demonstrates why enforcing the mandatory forum selection provision was disfavored due to judicial economy. In U.S. f/u/b/o Exposed Roof Design, LLC v. Tandem Roofing, 2023 WL 7688584 (E.D.La. 2023), a sub-subcontractor filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit against the prime contractor and the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond sureties. The sub-subcontractor also sued the subcontractor that hired it. However, the sub-subcontractor’s subcontract with the subcontractor included a mandatory forum selection provision in a different form. The subcontractor moved to sever and transfer the sub-subcontractor’s claims against it to the forum agreed upon in the subcontract. The trial court denied the severance and the transfer. Below are the reasons. 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

    Withdrawal of an Admission in California May Shift Costs—Including Attorneys’ Fees—Incurred in Connection with the Withdrawal

    January 24, 2018 —
    Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300, a court may permit a party to withdraw an admission made in response to a request for admission upon noticed motion. The court may only do so, however, “if it determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300(b). The court may also “impose conditions on the granting of the motion that are just, including, but not limited to . . . (2) An order that the costs of any additional discovery be borne in whole or in part by the party withdrawing or amending the admission.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300(c). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com