BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projects
    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


    Social Distancing and the Impact on Service of Process Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

    Review of Recent Contractors State License Board Changes

    South Caroline Holds Actual Cash Value Can Include Depreciation of Labor Costs

    Bertha – The Tunnel is Finished, but Her Legacy Continues

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules in Builder’s Implied Warranty of Habitability Case

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs Paid by Other Insurers

    A Proactive Approach to Construction Safety

    North Carolina Federal Court Holds “Hazardous Materials” Exclusion Does Not Bar Duty to Defend Under CGL Policy for Bodily Injury Claims Arising Out of Direct Exposure to PFAs

    Taking Advantage of New Tax Credits and Prevailing Wage Bonuses Under the Inflation Reduction Act for Clean Energy Construction Projects

    EO or Uh-Oh: Biden’s Executive Order Requiring Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects

    Court Extends Insurer Rights to Equitable Contribution

    Sureties do not Issue Bonds Risk-Free to the Bond-Principal

    The Show Must Go On: Navigating Arbitration in the Wake of the COVID-19 Outbreak

    Vegas Hi-Rise Not Earthquake Safe

    How Well Do You Know the 2012 IECC Code?

    Virtual Reality for Construction

    Traub Lieberman Partner Rina Clemens Selected as a 2023 Florida Super Lawyers® Rising Star

    The Construction Project is Late—Allocation of Delay

    The Conscious Builder – Interview with Casey Grey

    A Primer on Insurance for Construction Projects

    NY Estimating Consultant Settles $3.1M Government Project Fraud Case

    Contractor May Be Barred Until Construction Lawsuit Settled

    ¡AI Caramba!

    Terminating Contracts for Convenience — “Just Because”

    Jury Awards Aluminum Company 35 Million in Time Element Losses

    #3 CDJ Topic: Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy No. A15274001 v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. D066615

    Haight Attorneys Selected to 2018 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Indemnity Provision Provides Relief to Contractor; Additional Insured Provision Does Not

    Washington Supreme Court Expands Contractor Notice Obligations

    The Reptile Theory in Practice

    New York Appellate Court Holds Insurer’s Failure to Defend Does Not Constitute a “Reasonable Excuse” Required to Overturn Judgment

    Conditional Judgment On Replacement Costs Awarded

    SIG Earnings Advance 21% as U.K. Construction Strengthens

    Existence of “Duty” in Negligence Action is Question of Law

    Texas Jury Awards $5.3 Million to Company Defamed by Union: Could it work in Pennsylvania?

    Construction Contractor “Mean Tweets” Edition

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “That’s Not How I Read It”

    Renee Mortimer Recognized as "Defense Lawyer of the Year" by DTCI

    Sixth Circuit Rejects Claim for Reverse Bad Faith

    ISO Proposes New Designated Premises Endorsement in Response to Hawaii Decision

    2015-2016 California Labor & Employment Laws Affecting Construction Industry

    House Passes $25B Water Resources Development Bill

    CA Supreme Court Finds “Consent-to-Assignment” Clauses Unenforceable After Loss Occurs During the Policy Period

    A Chicago Skyscraper Cements the Legacy of a Visionary Postmodern Architect

    Lightstone Committing $2 Billion to Hotel Projects

    Less Than Perfectly Drafted Endorsement Bars Flood Coverage

    EPA Looks to Reduce Embodied Carbon in Materials With $160M in Grants

    ASCE Statement On White House "Accelerating Infrastructure Summit"

    Mid-Session Overview of Colorado’s 2017 Construction Defect Legislation

    No Coverage for Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Insolvency of Primary Carrier Does Not Invoke Excess Coverage

    January 06, 2016 —
    The insured failed to present any argument for excess coverage after the insolvency of the primary carrier. Canal Ins. Co. v. Montello, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20625 (10th Cir. Nov. 27, 2015). Montello distributed an oil drill containing asbestos between 1966 and 1985. Montello was sued by individuals claiming injuries due to exposure to the asbestos. Montello was insured by The Home Insurance Company from March 1975 to March 1984. In 2003, Home was declared insolvent. Home did not pay any claims for bodily injury on Montello's behalf. 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

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

    May 25, 2020 —
    White and Williams is pleased to announce the election of Vincent Barbera and James Burger to the partnership. The firm has also promoted Victoria Fuller, Phyllis Ingram, William Johnston, Eric Porter, Gus Sara, Jenifer Scarcella, Lian Skaf and Brett Tishler from associate to counsel. The newly elected partners and promoted counsel represent the wide array of practices that White and Williams offers its clients, including education, finance, financial lines, insurance coverage, labor and employment, litigation, real estate, and subrogation. These accomplished lawyers have earned this advancement based on their contributions to the firm and their practices. “We are pleased to elect these two lawyers to the partnership and promote eight exceptional associates to counsel. The group demonstrates the legal talent and breadth of services White and Williams offers clients,” said Patti Santelle, Managing Partner of the firm. “The contributions of these lawyers have enhanced the growth and reputation of our firm and reflect our deep commitment to clients. We look forward to their continued success.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage

    July 30, 2019 —
    In McMillin Homes Construction v. Natl. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (No. D074219, filed 6/5/19) a California appeals court held that a “care, custody or control” exclusion did not bar coverage for defense of a general contractor as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s policy, because the exclusion requires exclusive control, but the facts and allegations posed a possibility of shared control with the subcontractor. McMillin was the general contractor on a housing project and was added as an additional insured to the roofing subcontractor’s policy pursuant to the construction subcontract. The homeowners sued, including allegations of water intrusion from roof defects. McMillin tendered to the roofing subcontractor’s insurer, which denied a defense based on the CGL exclusion for damage to property within McMillin’s care, custody or control. In the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, McMillin argued that the exclusion required complete or exclusive care, custody or control by the insured claiming coverage, which was not the case for McMillin. The insurer argued that the exclusion said nothing about complete or exclusive care, custody or control. Further, the intent to exclude coverage for damage to any and all property in McMillin’s care, custody or control, to whatever degree, was demonstrated by the fact that the additional insured endorsement in question was not an ISO CG2010 form, but a CG2009 form, which expressly adds a care, custody or control exclusion to the additional insured coverage not found in the CG2010 form. The argument was that the CG2009 form evidences an intent to conclusively eliminate coverage for property in the additional insured’s care, custody or control. In addition, the insurer argued that this result was also reinforced by its inclusion of an ISO CG2139 endorsement in the roofer’s policy, which eliminated that part of the “insured contract” language of the CGL form, defining an “insured contract” as “[t]hat part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business . . . under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to a third person or organization.” The insurer’s argument was that by having eliminated coverage for contractual indemnity or hold harmless agreements, it had “closed the loop” of eliminating additional insured coverage for construction defect claims. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    What Will the 2024 Construction Economy Look Like?

    January 02, 2024 —
    CE just wrapped its "2024 Economic Update and Forecast" webinar, which revealed some interesting insights for 2023 and projections for next year. Anirban Basu, chief economist for ABC and CEO of Sage Policy Group, began his presentation by stating auspiciously: “The economy has been much stronger along more dimensions than I expected.” Polling: good news for the supply chain Not only did Basu's own research reveal strong construction growth in a majority of sectors, a decent number of construction job openings and wage increases, as well as supply-chain improvement and a stagnating federal rate—but webinar attendees who answered Basu's polling questions felt similarly. Reprinted courtesy of Grace Calengor, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    OSHA ETS Heads to Sixth Circuit

    December 13, 2021 —
    On November 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was selected during the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s lottery to hear the multiple consolidated challenges to the recent COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA is permitted to issue an ETS if the agency arrives at the conclusion that a “grave danger” to worker safety exists. An ETS does not go through the typical notice-and-comment period that federal regulations usually follow. Inheriting the Fifth Circuit’s recent nationwide stay on implementation and enforcement of the ETS, the Sixth Circuit will decide whether the stay should be “modified, revoked, or extended” in the short term. Early this morning, OSHA filed an emergency motion to dissolve the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the vaccine mandate with the Sixth Circuit. OSHA argued, among other things:
    • The Fifth Circuit erred in holding “that OSHA lacked statutory authority to address the grave danger of COVID-19 in the place on the ground that COVID-19 is caused by a virus and also exists outside of the workplace” because “[t]hat rationale has no basis in the statutory text.”
    • The Fifth Circuit erred in finding the ETS both over- and underinclusive because “OSHA recounted extensive empirical data showing that all employees can transmit COVID-19 in the workplace and that COVID-19 has spread in a vast variety of workplace.”
    • The “petitioners have not shown that their claimed injuries outweigh the interests in protecting employees from a dangerous virus while this litigation proceeds . . . . These claimed injuries do not justify delaying the [ETS] that will save thousands of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of George Morrison, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Morrison may be contacted at morrisong@whiteandwilliams.com

    Keeping KeyArena's Landmark Lid Overhead at Climate Pledge Arena Redevelopment Is A 22,000-Ton Balancing Act

    November 30, 2020 —
    Most contractors would jump at the chance to have a roof overhead during a major rebuild. But for the team turning earthquake-prone Seattle’s 411,000-sq-ft KeyArena into the 932,000-sq-ft Climate Pledge Arena, the city-owned facility’s historic helmet has been a 44-million-lb design and construction headache. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Prompt Payment More Likely on Residential Construction Jobs Than Commercial or Public Jobs

    May 02, 2022 —
    NEW ORLEANS, May 02, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- In construction, no line of work guarantees prompt and in-full payments, but contractors working on residential jobs say their rate of prompt payment is significantly better than commercial or public jobs, according to the 2022 Levelset Cash Flow and Payment Report. However, the report revealed that residential construction jobs require increased communication to improve the chance of prompt payment when compared to commercial or public jobs. Contractors working on residential projects are more than twice as likely as those working on public projects to report getting paid within 30 days, with residential construction contractors saying they are paid in 30 days or less 48% of the time and public construction contractors saying that only happens 21% of the time. Significantly slow payments of 60 days or more are three times more likely on public construction projects than on residential construction projects, according to the survey participants. Residential contractors say it happens rarely, just 6% of the time, while public project contractors say it happens nearly one out of five times (18%). For more information about the report and a detailed summary of findings, please visit: www.levelset.com/survey About Levelset Levelset's mission is to empower contractors to always get what they earn. Levelset's products help millions in the construction industry each year to make payment paperwork and compliance easier, get cash faster, monitor the risk on jobs and contractors, and better understand payment processes and rules. The results are faster payments, access to capital, and fewer surprises. Founded in 2012, Levelset is based in New Orleans, Louisiana, with offices in Austin, Texas, and Cairo, Egypt, and is owned and operated by Procore Technologies, Inc. For more information, visit www.levelset.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Trump Soho May Abandon Condos to Operate Mainly as Hotel

    January 28, 2015 —
    Lower Manhattan’s Trump Soho, the five-year-old tower that was seized in a foreclosure amid slow sales of its condominiums, may drop its focus on part-time residences and operate most of the property solely as a hotel. The building’s new owner, Los Angeles-based CIM Group, is “stepping away” from marketing the roughly two-thirds of condos that remain unsold, said Gary Schweikert, the building’s managing director. The company is considering converting the unsold units at the tower permanently into hotel rooms, he said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadja Brandt, Bloomberg
    Ms. Brandt may be contacted at nbrandt@bloomberg.net