BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating 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


    Can’t Get a Written Change Order? Document, Document, Document

    Entire Fairness or Business Judgment? It’s Anyone’s Guess

    How Drones are Speeding Up Construction

    McGraw Hill to Sell off Construction-Data Unit

    Does the New Jersey Right-To-Repair Law Omit Too Many Construction Defects?

    Harlem Developers Reach Deal with Attorney General

    Fires, Hurricanes, Dangerous Heat: The US Is Reeling From a String of Disasters

    And the Cyber-Beat Goes On. Yet Another Cyber Regulatory Focus for Insurers

    Insurer Doomed in Delaware by the Sutton Rule

    Carbon Monoxide Injuries Caused by One Occurrence

    The Investors Profiting Off Water Scarcity

    Residential Construction Surges in Durham

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    Design Professional Needs a License to be Sued for Professional Negligence

    Wildfire Is Efficient Proximate Cause of Moisture Reaching Expansive Soils Under Residence

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Cable-Free Elevators Will Soar to New Heights, and Move Sideways

    Insurer Must Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Be Proactive Now: Commercial Construction Quickly Joining List of Industries Vulnerable to Cyber Attacks

    Design-Assist, an Ambiguous Term Causing Conflict in the Construction Industry[1]

    Chinese Millionaire Roils Brokers Over Shrinking Mansion

    What Types of “Damages Claims” Survive a Trustee’s Sale?

    Measure Of Damages for Breach of Construction Contract

    In Hong Kong, You Can Find a Home Where the Buffalo Roam

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Faulty Workmanship Claim

    Who is a “Contractor” as Used in “Unlicensed Contractor”?

    With No Evidence of COVID-19 Being Present, DC Trial Court Finds No Claim for Business Interruption

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

    Pending Sales of Existing Homes in U.S. Decline for Eighth Month

    How Do You Get to the Five Year Mark? Some Practical Advice

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

    Virginia Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade

    OSHA Begins Enforcement of its Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard. Try Saying That Five Times Real Fast

    Pool Contractor’s Assets Frozen over Construction Claims

    Patent or Latent: An Important Question in Construction Defects

    Bond Principal Necessary on a Mechanic’s Lien Claim

    Details of Sealed Whistleblower Charges Over Cuomo Bridge Bolts Burst Into Public View

    When Does a Contractor Legally Abandon a Construction Project?

    ConsensusDOCS Hits the Cloud

    Identifying and Accessing Coverage in Complex Construction Claims

    California Courts Call a “Time Out” During COVID-19 –New Emergency Court Rules on Civil Litigation

    Million-Dollar Home Sales Thrive While Low End Stumbles

    Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses

    Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Update

    Hunton Insurance Lawyer, Jae Lynn Huckaba, Awarded Miami-Dade Bar Association Young Lawyer Section’s Rookie of the Year Award

    Meet D1's Neutrals Series: KENNETH FLOREY

    New World Cup Stadiums Failed at their First Trial

    Dot I’s and Cross T’s When It Comes to Construction Licensure Requirements

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution

    Drop in Civil Trials May Cause Problems for Construction Defect Cases
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations

    November 21, 2017 —
    Originally published by CDJ on June 15, 2017 Since 2008 when the California legislature limited subcontractor indemnity obligations, the design professional community has been shouting “what about us?” Well, the legislature finally responded and a new law that limits design professional’s defense and indemnity obligations to their percentage of fault goes into effect on January 1, 2018. THE NEW LAW – SB 496 SB 496 amends California Civil Code section 2782.8 and states that indemnity agreements must be limited to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the indemnitee (i.e. no more Type I indemnity with design professionals). The amendment also provides that “in no event shall the cost to defend charged to the design professional exceed the design professional’s proportionate percentage of fault”, with a limited opportunity for reallocation in the event another defendant is judgment proof. However, the duty to defend still remains and still arises at the time of the tender of the defense (both issues that were unsuccessfully targeted by the design professional lobbyists). Reprinted courtesy of Mark Himmelstein, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP and Jenny Guzman, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP Mr. Price may be contacted at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com Ms. Zucker may be contacted at jenny.guzman@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Spending Drops in March

    May 10, 2013 —
    Reuters reports that construction spending dropped by 1.7 percent in March, bringing it to the lowest level since August, more than wiping out February’s increase of 1.5 percent. Economists had predicted a mild gain of 0.7 percent. Spending fell due to a 4.1 percent drop in public construction projects, bringing it to its lowest in six and a half years. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court of Appeals Expands Application of Construction Statute of Repose

    December 29, 2020 —
    A recent decision by Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals in Puget Sound Energy, Inc v. Pilchuck Contractors, Inc.[1] demonstrates the broad application of the construction statute of repose to work performed by contractors. The construction statute of repose[2] bars certain legal claims based on construction activity if the alleged harm caused by the activity does not occur within a specific timeframe. The claims covered by the construction statute of repose include: all claims or causes of action of any kind against any person, arising from such person having constructed, altered, or repaired any improvement upon real property, or having performed or furnished any design, planning, surveying, architectural or construction or engineering services, or supervision or observation of construction, or administration of construction contracts for any construction, alteration or repair of any improvement upon real property.[3] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Schirmer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Schirmer may be contacted at jonathan.schirmer@acslawyers.com

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

    October 02, 2015 —
    In Sanislo v. Give Kids the World, Inc., 157 So.3d 256 (Fla. 2015), the Supreme Court of Florida considered whether a party to a contract, in order to be released from liability for its own negligence, needs to include an express reference to negligence in an exculpatory clause. The court held that, unlike an indemnification clause, so long as the language in an exculpatory clause is clear, the absence of the terms “negligence” or “negligent acts” in an exculpatory clause does not, for that reason alone, render the exculpatory clause ineffective. Background Give Kids the World, Inc. (“GKW”) is a non-profit organization that provides free vacations to seriously ill children and their families at GKW’s resort village. To use the resort, vacationers have to fill out an application. Stacy and Eric Sanislo filled out an application to bring their seriously ill child to the village for a vacation and GKW accepted their application. Upon arriving at the resort, the Sanislos filled out a liability release form. Reprinted courtesy of Edward Jaeger, White and Williams LLP and William Doerler, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Pipeline Disaster Brings More Scandal for PG&E

    September 17, 2014 —
    A deadly pipeline explosion that shattered a California town four years ago continues to rip through the state agency weighing a record penalty for the disaster. The president of the California Public Utilities Commission asked his chief of staff to resign and recused himself from the case after “inappropriate e-mail exchanges” with PG&E Corp. (PCG) raised questions about bias, according to a statement from the commission yesterday. The CPUC may decide within weeks whether to levy a proposed $1.4 billion penalty -- the biggest safety fine in the state’s history -- against PG&E for the 2010 explosion of a natural gas pipeline that killed eight people in San Bruno. Commission President Michael Peevey, who has been accused by San Bruno officials and consumer advocates of being too close to the utility, said in the statement he would not take part in penalty deliberations to eliminate any appearance of impropriety. The move is a step toward regaining credibility for the CPUC after two years of political infighting has created an ongoing climate of scandal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mark Chediak, Bloomberg
    Mr. Chediak may be contacted at mchediak@bloomberg.net

    Following Pennsylvania Trend, Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Construction Defect

    December 08, 2016 —
    Bound by Pennsylvania law, the federal district court found there was no coverage for defects in the installation of a roof. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Kim's Asia Constr., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 5, 2016). Kim's Asia Construction contracted to remove and dispose of Powerline Imports, Inc.'s roof, and then install a new roof. After completion of the project, Powerline sued, alleging that Kim's Asia's negligent construction of the roof caused the roof to leak, even in minor rain storms. Kim's Asia made additional repairs, but the leaks continued. Powerline had to hire a new contractor to remove and dispose of the roof and install another roof. Powerline then sued Kim's Asia. 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

    Delay Leads to Problems with Construction Defects

    November 27, 2013 —
    The Bardwells bought a new home in the Philadelphia area in 2000. Now, thirteen years later they’ve learned that their house has been slowly rotting away due to moisture trapped beneath the stucco. And they’re not alone. The O’Days bought a home for about $1 million, and it now needs about $200,000 in repairs. All the stucco has been removed and their home is being rebuilt. Monica Bardwell said that “everything was rotted,” and “there was not a piece of good wood to be salvaged.” Other area homeowners are finding similar problems. Wendy Meyer had her home inspected by Kevin Thompson. Mr. Thompson said, “I shouldn’t be able to take a piece of plywood like that and crush it in my hands completely disintegrated.” Mr. Thompson described it as due to “faulty construction,” which he estimated accounted for such damage “95 percent of the time.” The Pennsylvania Builders Association says that diligent homeowners can head off problems with maintenance. “Make sure water isn’t continually on the outside of the stucco,” said Brent Sailhamer of the PBA. “Make sure there are no large cracks where water can seep behind the stucco.” For those who bought their homes as far back as the Bardwells, it’s already too late to sue anyone. Pennsylvania construction defect law allows 12 years for lawsuits. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Cherokee Nation Wins Summary Judgment in COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

    February 01, 2021 —
    In a resounding victory for policyholders, an Oklahoma state court granted partial summary judgment for the Cherokee Nation in its COVID-19 business interruption claim. The Cherokee Nation is seeking coverage for losses caused by the pandemic—specifically, the inability to use numerous tribal businesses and services for their intended purpose. Based on the “all risks” nature of the policy and the fortuitous nature of its loss, the Cherokee Nation sought a partial summary judgment ruling that the policies afford business interruption coverage for COVID-19-related losses. The policy provided coverage for “all risk of direct physical loss or damage,” which the Cherokee Nation contended was triggered when the property was “rendered unusable for its intended purpose.” In support of this view, and consistent with established insurance policy interpretation principles, such as providing meaning to every term and reading the policy as a whole, the Cherokee Nation argued that a distinction must exist between “physical loss” and “physical damage.” This distinction demands an interpretation supporting the “intended purpose” reading of the policy language. Thus, the physical presence of COVID-19 depriving the Cherokee Nation of the use of covered property for its intended purpose triggered a covered loss. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Matt Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of