BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failure
    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


    ASCE and Accelerator for America Release Map to Showcase Projects from Bipartisan Infrastructure Law

    Dump Site Provider Has Valid Little Miller Act Claim

    Employee or Independent Contractor? New Administrator’s Interpretation Issued by Department of Labor Provides Guidance

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 3- The Last Straw

    Where-Forum Art Thou? Is the Chosen Forum Akin to No Forum at All?

    Waiving Workers’ Compensation Immunity for Indemnity: Demystifying a Common and Scary-Looking Contract Term

    Daily Construction Reports: Don’t Leave the Job Without Them

    Dispute between City and Construction Company Over Unsightly Arches

    How to Fix America

    Recent Supreme Court Decision Could Have Substantial Impact on Builders

    A Termination for Convenience Is Not a Termination for Default

    Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review

    Virginia Decision Emphasizes Importance of Naming All Necessary Parties

    Anthony Luckie Speaks With Columbia University On Receiving Graduate Degree in Construction Administration Alongside His Father

    San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim

    Storm Breaches California River's Levee, Thousands Evacuate

    New Report Reveals Heavy Civil Construction Less Impacted by COVID-19 Than Commercial Construction

    Traub Lieberman Team Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Client Under Florida’s Newly Implemented Summary Judgment Standard

    Withholding Payment or Having Your Payment Withheld Due to Disputes on Other Projects: Know Your Rights to Offset

    Rights Afforded to Employees and Employers During Strikes

    What Makes Building Ventilation Good Enough to Withstand a Pandemic?

    Construction Law Client Advisory: What The Recent Beacon Decision Means For Developers And General Contractors

    Court of Appeal Holds That Higher-Tiered Party on Construction Project Can be Held Liable for Intentional Interference with Contract

    Breaking Down Homeowners Association Laws In California

    Pensacola Bridge Halted Due to Alleged Construction Defects

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    Carolinas Storm Damage Tally Impeded by Lingering Floods

    No Coverage for Foundation Collapse

    Drawing the Line: In Tennessee, the Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Apply to Contracts for Services

    The Word “Estimate” in a Contract Matters as to a Completion Date

    The 2023 Term of the Supreme Court: Administrative and Regulatory Law Rulings

    Incorporation by Reference in Your Design Services Contract– What Does this Mean, and Are You at Risk? (Law Note)

    Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case

    When to Withhold Retention Payments on Private or Public Projects

    No Bad Faith in Insurer's Denial of Collapse Claim

    The Future of Airport Infrastructure in a Post-Pandemic World

    Harmon Tower Opponents to Try Mediation

    No Coverage Based Upon Your Prior Work Exclusion

    Green Construction Claims: More of the Same

    Domtar Update

    Defense Owed for Product Liability Claims That Do Not Amount to Faulty Workmanship

    Court Strikes Expert Opinion That Surety Acted as a “De Facto Contractor”

    More Money Down Adds to U.S. First-Time Buyer Blues: Economy

    Project-Specific Commercial General Liability Insurance

    Planned Everglades Reservoir at Center of Spat Between Fla.'s Gov.-Elect, Water Management District

    Construction Industry on the Comeback, But It Won’t Be the Same

    Condominium Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect

    Tidal Lagoon Plans Marine Project to Power Every Home in Wales

    Client Alert: Absence of a Court Reporter at a Civil Motion Hearing May Preclude Appellate Review

    Texas Approves Law Ensuring Fair and Open Competition
    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

    Additional Insured Coverage Confirmed

    February 23, 2016 —
    The Texas Court of Appeals found that Exxon Mobil Corporation was an additional insured under the CGL policy for Exxon's service provider. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 12757 (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2015). Exxon contracted with Wyatt Field Service Company to perform "services" as set forth in various work orders from Exxon's affiliates. The contract also required Wyatt to maintain $5 million of commercial general liability insurance. The contract provided that the policies must cover Exxon and its affiliates "as additional insureds in connection with the performance of Services." In 2008, Wyatt was assigned to work on a flexicoker unit at Exxon's refinery. Wyatt was to reinstall dummy nozzles and chains. It completed this service in October 2008. Three years later, one of the dummy nozzles pulled free, and the escaping steam and coke burned three individuals who were working on the unit. After the accident, it was discovered that the safety chain had been installed in the wrong location so that it did not properly secure the dummy nozzle. 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

    Revel Closing Shows Gambling Is No Sure Thing for Renewal

    September 03, 2014 —
    The Revel Casino Hotel was envisioned as a playground for Wall Streeters who hated flying to Las Vegas. Instead, it’s become a money pit for the banks and money managers who spearheaded the New Jersey project, and the losses will keep coming even after closing today. The Atlantic City resort, built at a cost of $2.4 billion, ceased operations after two bankruptcies and a 10-month search for a buyer. Barring a sale, the new owners may be Wells Fargo & Co. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., which provided $125 million in court-approved funding. Previous backers also included Capital Group Cos., the third-largest manager of U.S. mutual funds, and Morgan Stanley, the original investor. The resort fell prey to poor timing, bad design and a misreading of the local market. The Revel saga shows what can go wrong when bankers stray from what they know, according to Charles Geisst, a professor of finance at Manhattan College in New York and author of the book “Wall Street: A History.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Palmeri, Bloomberg
    Mr. Palmeri may be contacted at cpalmeri1@bloomberg.net

    Gloria Gaynor Sues Contractor over Defective Deck Construction

    October 22, 2013 —
    Gloria Gaynor, known for her 1978 disco hit, “I Will Survive” is suing the firm that renovated her second-floor deck, alleging that the work lead to water intrusion into her home. Ms. Gaynor also accuses the company of consumer fraud, alleging that Diaz Landscape Design & Tree Service LLC lacked registration as a home improvement contractor and failed to obtain a building permit for the structure. Ms. Gaynor paid about $38,000 for the replacement of her deck and other renovations to her property in 2007. Subsequently, the singer noticed “ponding of water on the deck, water damage to wood sills and supports, and the formation of mold,” according to the lawsuit. Diaz Landscape attempted repairs, but “the problems persisted and continue to persist causing further damage.” The lawsuit claims that the cost of replacing the defective deck construction would cost about $120,000. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Survey Reveals Present-Day Risks of Asbestos Exposure in America - 38% in High-Risk Jobs, 47% Vulnerable through Second-Hand Exposure

    April 08, 2024 —
    AUSTIN, April 04, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A recent nationwide survey conducted on the risks of asbestos in America revealed that 38% of respondents have worked in high-risk industries where asbestos was present, while 47% have experienced indirect exposure through family members employed in these high-risk environments. The survey results reflect the fact that, despite the EPA's recent ban on ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, the threat of exposure still looms large in the US, underscoring the urgent need for continued vigilance and action to safeguard public health. Compounding the concern is the revelation that only 8% of Americans undergo regular testing. These findings, released today, underscore the urgent necessity for Asbestos Cancer Risk Awareness and routine testing. They emphasize the crucial importance of proactive measures to mitigate the pervasive risks associated with asbestos exposure in the United States. The study was conducted by Researchscape on behalf of The Law Offices of Justinian C. Lane, Esq. - PLLC, a leading firm advocating for testing and compensation for individuals exposed to asbestos on the job and their families who are at risk due to second-hand exposure. According to the survey, 86% of respondents have never undergone any testing for asbestos exposure, while a mere 8% are tested regularly. The lack of testing is particularly concerning among the Gen X demographic who could be at risk due to secondhand exposure from a family member who worked with asbestos when it was still prevalent, with 92% reporting no testing, highlighting the potential risks associated with secondhand exposure. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Building with Recycled Plastics – Interview with Jeff Mintz of Envirolastech

    January 19, 2017 —
    Plastic waste is a huge global problem and we need viable solutions. In this interview with Jeff Mintz, CEO of Envirolastech, we discuss how plastic can be recycled and used as a building material in a unique way. Envirolastech, Inc, is a developer of thermoplastic technology that offers a cost-competitive alternative to wood and concrete in a variety of products and applications. The company’s products are made from 100% non-organic recycled materials and they are 100% recyclable (see product features). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aarni@aepartners.fi

    BP Is Not an Additional Insured Under Transocean's Policy

    April 01, 2015 —
    Responding to a certified question from the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court determined that BP was not an additional insured under Transocean's liability policy and had no coverage under the policy for the deaths caused by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon. In re Horizon, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 141 (Tex. Feb. 13, 2015). We have previously posted on this case in the federal courts here and here. Transocean owned the Deepwater Horizon, a mobile offshore drilling unit operating in the Gulf of Mexico pursuant to a contract with BP. After an explosion in April 2010, the rig caught fire, killing eleven crew members. Both Transocean and BP sought coverage under Transocean's primary and excess policies. Although they did not dispute that BP was an additional insured, Transocean and its insurers argued that BP was not entitled to coverage for pollution-related liabilities arising from subsurface oil releases in connection with the Deepwater Horizon accident. 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

    A Court-Side Seat: May Brings Federal Appellate Courts Rulings and Executive Orders

    June 29, 2020 —
    Here are a few interesting new rulings from the federal appellate courts. COURT ORDERS Like a Good Neighbor …?State of Maryland v. EPA On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit decided a Clean Air Act case involving the use of the “Good Neighbor Provision” of the Act, which is triggered when one state has a complaint about emissions generated in a neighboring upwind state that settle in the downwind state. Here, Maryland and Delaware filed petitions with EPA seeking relief from the impact of emissions from coal-fired power plants that allegedly affect their states’ air quality. EPA largely denied relief, and the court largely upheld the agency’s use and interpretation of the Good Neighbor Provision. The opinion is valuable because of its clear exposition of this complicated policy. A Volatile Underground IssueWayne Land and Mineral Group v. the Delaware River Basin Commission Also on May 19, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a ruling involving the Delaware River Basin Commission. Established in 1961, the Commission oversees and protects the water resources in the Basin. Not long ago, the Executive Director of the Commission, citing a rule of the Commission, imposed very strict limitations on fracking operations in the Basin. This decision has been very controversial with the Third Circuit opining that the Commission’s authority to regulate fracking operations—thought to be a province of state authority—was not clear-cut. In this case, three Pennsylvania state senators filed motions to intervene in the case, but the lower court rejected their request. The Third Circuit has directed the lower court to take another look at their standing to participate in this litigation. This is a volatile issue in Pennsylvania. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Conflicting Exclusions Result in Duty to Defend

    October 21, 2015 —
    The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that the insurer had a duty to defend in light of conflicting endorsements in the policy. Panfil v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14621 (7th Cir. Aug. 20, 2015). JRJ Ada, LLC was a contractor. JRJ's two members, Joe Panfil and Renee Michelon, had a CGL policy with Nautilus. The employee of JRJ's subcontractor, Astro Insulation, fell through a hole while performing insulation work, injuring himself. The employee sued JRJ, who sought a defense from Nautilus. Nautilus refused to defend because JRJ was not an insured under the policy. Further, Nautilus relied upon the policy's Contractor-Subcontrated Work Endorsement and Employee Exclusion to deny coverage. Panfil and Michelon sued Nautilus. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed and the court granted plaitniffs' motion while denying Nautilus' motion. The district court first found that the policy should be reformed to inlcude JRJ as an insured. Nautilus did not appeal this determination. The court also found that Nautilus breached its duty to defend and was therefore estopped from asserting policy defenses to coverage. 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