BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield 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


    Quick Note: Remember to Timely Foreclose Lien Against Lien Transfer Bond

    Indemnity: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You!

    Surety’s Several Liability Under Bonds

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    Contractor Sues Golden Gate Bridge District Over Suicide Net Project

    Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Action Violation

    Construction Warranties and the Statute of Repose – Southern States Chemical, Inc v. Tampa Tank & Welding Inc.

    Lack of Flood Insurance for New York’s Poorest Residents

    Government Claims Act Does Not Apply to Actions Solely Seeking Declaratory Relief and Not Monetary Relief

    12 Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2022 U.S. News Best Lawyers in Multiple Practice Areas

    Supreme Court of Wisconsin Applies Pro Rata Allocation Based on Policy Limits to Co-Insurance Dispute

    Litigation Roundup: “You Can’t Make Me Pay!”

    Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity Rule Gets “Trumped” by Indemnity Provision

    South Carolina Court of Appeals Diverges from Damico Opinion, Sending Recent Construction Defects Cases to Arbitration

    Parking Reform Takes Off on the West Coast

    OSHA’s New Severe Injury and Fatality Reporting Requirements, Are You Ready?

    California Commission Recommends Switching To Fault-Based Wildfire Liability Standard for Public Utilities

    Former SNC-Lavalin CEO Now Set for Trial in Bribe Case

    Construction Defects through the Years

    Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

    It Has Started: Supply-Chain, Warehouse and Retail Workers of Essential Businesses Are Filing Suit

    Deducting 2018 Real Property Taxes Prepaid in 2017 Comes with Caveats

    Congratulations to BWB&O for Ranking in The U.S. News – Best Lawyers ® as “Best Law Firms”!

    U.K. Developer Pledges Building Safety in Wake of Grenfell

    Texas Supreme Court Rules That Subsequent Purchaser of Home Is Bound by Original Homeowner’s Arbitration Agreement With Builder

    All Aboard! COVID-19 Securities Suit Sets Sail, Implicates D&O Insurance

    Editorial: Qatar Is Champion of Safety Hypocrisy in Migrant Worker Deaths

    Cal/OSHA’s Toolbox Has Significantly Expanded: A Look At Senate Bill 606

    Excess Carrier's Declaratory Judgment Action Stayed While Underlying Case Still Pending

    Washington Supreme Court Interprets Ensuing Loss Exception in All-Risk Property Insurance Policy

    A Homeowner’s Subsequent Action is Barred as a Matter of Law by way of a Prior “Right to Repair Act” Claim Resolved by Cash Settlement for Waiver of all Known or Unknown Claims

    Florida Condos Bet on Americans Making 50% Down Payments

    Alabama Limits Duty to Defend for Construction Defects

    Defend Trade Secret Act of 2016–-Federalizing Trade Secret Law

    Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project.

    OSHA Finalizes Rule on Crane Operator Qualification and Certification

    Supreme Court Declines to Address CDC Eviction Moratorium

    How Berger’s Peer Review Role Figures In Potential Bridge Collapse Settlement

    More Regulations for Federal Contractors

    Construction Litigation—Battles on Many Fronts

    New York Team’s Win Limits Scope of Property Owners’ Duties to Workers for Hazards Inherent in Their Work

    The COVID-19 Impact: Navigating the Legal Landscape’s New Normal

    Thanks for My 6th Year Running as a Construction Litigation Super Lawyer

    CGL Policy Covering Attorney’s Fees in Property Damage Claims

    What is Bad Faith?

    Water Intrusion Judged Not Related to Construction

    “If It Walks Like A Duck . . .” – Expert Testimony Not Always Required In Realtor Malpractice Cases Where Alleged Breach Of Duty Can Be Easily Understood By Lay Persons

    Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolute Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage For Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

    Texas Law Bars Coverage under Homeowner’s Policy for Mold Damage

    Large Canada Employers and Jobsites Mandate COVID-19 Vaccines
    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

    Housing Starts Fall as U.S. Single-Family Projects Decline

    February 18, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- Builders broke ground on fewer U.S. residential construction projects in January as demand for single-family homes cooled from an almost seven-year high, signaling the rebound in housing remains uneven. Housing starts declined 2 percent to a 1.07 million annual rate, following the prior month’s 1.09 million pace, a Commerce Department report showed Wednesday in Washington. The median forecast of 82 economists surveyed by Bloomberg was 1.07 million. Permits, a proxy for future construction, also fell. Student debt, tight credit conditions and rising prices are probably preventing would-be first-time homebuyers from entering the market, which will damp construction. At the same time, a strengthening labor market and rising household formation may support building of rental units, underpinning residential real estate. Nina Glinski may be contacted at nglinski@bloomberg.net; Shobhana Chandra may be contacted at schandra1@bloomberg.net 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

    Developers Can Tap into DOE’s $400 Million for Remote and Rural Clean Energy Projects

    December 10, 2024 —
    On October 3, 2024, the Department of Energy Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations announced a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) to fund up to $400 million for clean energy projects in rural and remote areas via its Energy Improvements in Rural or Remote Areas program. The NOFO will provide awards ranging from $2 million – $50 million, with plans to fund 20 to 50 projects. Awards will require a non-federal cost share, range across four topic areas, and target projects in rural and remote communities with populations of 10,000 people or fewer. Eligibility Applications are open to a wide range of entities, including for-profit and nonprofit organizations, state and local governmental entities, Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations, institutions of higher education, rural electric cooperatives, incorporated and unincorporated consortia, farming associations and cooperatives, and labor unions. Generally applicants must be U.S. entities, but foreign entities may be allowed to participate in limited circumstances. Applicants must identify at least one area in the U.S. or U.S. territories with a population of up to 10,000 people which will benefit from the proposal. Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. James, Pillsbury, Elina Teplinsky, Pillsbury, Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury, Sidney L. Fowler, Pillsbury and Clarence H. Tolliver, Pillsbury Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Teplinsky may be contacted at elina.teplinsky@pillsburylaw.com Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Fowler may be contacted at sidney.fowler@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Tolliver may be contacted at clarence.tolliver@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

    August 17, 2011 —

    This post will examine whether Division Two of the Washington Court of Appeals properly reversed and remanded several lower court decisions in the case of Vision One LLC v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance. In short, and from the perspective of an appellate attorney, the court of appeals got the decision right. Given the rules of contract interpretation and causation in tort claims, there was really no other way the court could have ruled. I understand that from a contractor’s perspective and insurance perspective, the decision seems odd. But from a purely legal standpoint, the decision is well-reasoned and well-supported. Let me explain.

    Background

    First, here are the facts in a nutshell. Vision One is a construction company that undertook to construct a condo complex in Tacoma. Vision then contracted with D&D Concrete to pour a concrete slab for a section of the foundation. To shore the concrete slab, D&D further contracted Berg Equipment to provide necessary equipment to stabilize the structure. Well, something down the line went wrong. The shoring failed and the slab collapsed, causing a great deal of damage.

    Read the full story…

    Read the court’s decision…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

    Cape Town Seeks World Cup Stadium Construction Collusion Damages

    March 19, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- The City of Cape Town filed a civil damages claim against builders Aveng Ltd., Wilson Bayly Holmes-Ovcon Ltd. and Stefanutti Stocks Holdings Ltd. for colluding on a tender for a stadium built for the 2010 FIFA Soccer World Cup. The claim for at least 428 million rand ($35 million) will be heard in the North Gauteng High Court, Ian Neilson, Cape Town’s executive deputy mayor, said by phone on Monday. The amount claimed is subject to change, he said. Antitrust authorities fined 15 builders, including the trio facing the Cape Town claim, a total of 1.5 billion rand in June 2013 for rigging contracts for projects including the construction of stadiums for the 2010 World Cup hosted by South Africa. Aveng was fined 307 million rand, WBHO 311 million rand and Stefanutti 307 million rand. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Janice Kew, Bloomberg
    Ms. Kew may be contacted at jkew4@bloomberg.net

    Building Growth Raises Safety Concerns

    November 20, 2013 —
    With the resurgence of the construction industry, another trend is going up and it’s not good. The workplace fatality rate for the construction industry has increased for the first time since 2006, according to a new report from Marsh Risk Consulting, based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The increase to 9.5 deaths per 100,000 workers is attributed to “an influx of new, inexperienced workers” and that “some contractors are stretching their hiring standards to meet project demands.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Time is Money. Unless You’re an Insurance Company

    December 02, 2015 —
    Benjamin Franklin may never have been President but he’s better known than most of them. Not least of all for his pithy quotes on a wide range of subjects:
  • On personal finance – “A penny saved is a penny earned.”
  • On education – “Tell me and I forget, teach me and I remember, involve me and I learn.”
  • On getting real – “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”
  • On guests – “Guests, like fish, begin to smell after three days.”
  • On lawyers – “A countryman between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats.”
  • On beer – “In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in water there is bacteria.”
  • But if you were to pick one theme that seems to recur the most in Franklin’s quotes, it would be productivity:
  • “Time is money.”
  • “By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”
  • “Never leave that till tomorrow which you can do today.”
  • “Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man happy, wealthy and wise.”
  • But, as the next case, Grebow v. Mercury Insurance Company, Case No. B261172, California Court of Appeals for the Second District (October 21, 2015), illustrates, sometimes the most efficient way of doing things may not necessarily be the most financially prudent way of doing things. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    The Impact of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict on the Insurance Industry, Part One: Coverage, Exposure, and Losses

    August 22, 2022 —
    (August 10, 2022) - The Russia-Ukraine conflict has far-reaching implications for the insurance industry and for insurers and insureds alike. Many corporate policy holders around the world have withdrawn or scaled back operations with Russia and/or Russian-based corporations. In doing so, the corporate policy holders left behind property, assets, and inventory in Russia and/or suffered losses in revenue. Corporate policy holders are looking to their insurers to offset the losses. It is estimated that the insurance and reinsurance markets could face losses at nearly $20 billion. S&P Global predicts that losses could reach $35 billion. Additionally, the conflict in Ukraine creates uncertainty for insurers on how to navigate the influx of claims, especially from the cybersecurity sector. A key issue with the rise in claims is coverage. The general rule is that coverage under a policy for any loss must be evaluated by considering the policy language, the law applicable to the governing jurisdiction, and the facts surrounding the loss. Many policies contain a “war exclusion” clause, which can exclude property losses resulting from acts of war or governmental instability. However, corporate policy holders may have Political Risk Insurance, which can provide coverage for losses for items such as damaged property, seized property, and lost assets at a time of political turmoil or war. Even if a policy has Political Risk Insurance, it does not guarantee payout. Careful analysis of the policy language and facts surrounding the loss must still take place. For example, in the event of property claims, an insurer must still determine whether the loss is related to the conflict and/or whether the subject property was voluntarily abandoned or seized. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Kopit, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Kopit may be contacted at Michael.Kopit@lewisbrisbois.com