BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete 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


    Connecticut’s New False Claims Act Increases Risk to Public Construction Participants

    Construction Defects in Roof May Close School

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2021 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    Strangers in a Strange Land: Revisiting Arbitration Provisions to Account for Increasing International Influences

    Replacement of Defective Gym Construction Exceeds Original Cost

    Construction Venture Sues LAX for Nonpayment

    Newmeyer Dillion Named One of "The Best Places To Work In Orange County" by Orange County Business Journal

    Ninth Circuit Finds Policy’s Definition of “Policy Period” Fatal to Insurer’s “Related Claims” Argument

    Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    Public Contract Code Section 1104 Does Not Apply to Claims of Implied Breach of Warranty of Correctness of Plans and Specifications

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 7: How to Successfully Prepare, Submit and Negotiate the Claim

    Miami Building Boom Spreads Into Downtown’s Tent City

    It's a Wrap! Enforcing Online Agreements in Light of the CPRA

    It’s Too Late, Lloyd’s: New York Federal Court Finds Insurer Waived Late Notice Defense

    Montreal Bridge Builders Sue Canada Over New Restrictions

    Illinois Supreme Court Holds That the Implied Warranty of Habitability Does Not Extend to Subcontractors

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers Lists

    Kushner Company Files Suit Against Jersey City Over Delays to Planned Towers

    7 Areas where Technology is Shifting the Construction Business

    Hunton Insurance Partner Among Top 250 Women in Litigation

    ASCE Report Calls for Sweeping Changes to Texas Grid Infrastructure

    Fatal Boston Garage Demolition Leaves Long Road to Recovery

    Philadelphia Proposed Best Value Procurement Bill

    Over 70 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Recognized in 4th Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

    Pollution Created by Business Does Not Deprive Insured of Coverage

    Government’s Termination of Contractor for Default for Failure-To-Make Progress

    Board of Directors Guidance When Addressing Emergency Circumstances Occasioned by the COVID-19 Pandemic

    Skanska Will Work With Florida on Barge-Caused Damage to Pensacola Bay Bridge

    WARN Act Exceptions in Response to COVID-19

    UCF Sues Architects and Contractors Over Stadium Construction Defects

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    D.R. Horton Profit Beats Estimates as Home Sales Jumped

    EPA and the Corps of Engineers Repeal the 2015 “Waters of the United States” Rule

    School System Settles Design Defect Suit for $5.2Million

    Differing Site Conditions: What to Expect from the Court When You Encounter the Unexpected

    Insurer's Motion in Limine to Dismiss Case for Lack of Expert Denied

    Jury Instruction That Fails to Utilize Concurrent Cause for Property Loss is Erroneous

    Stormy Skies Ahead? Important News Regarding a Hard Construction Insurance Market

    Senate’s Fannie Mae Wind-Down Plan Faces High Hurdles

    Lease-Leaseback Fight Continues

    Congratulations to Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, Vik Nagpal, and Devin Gifford, and Associates Shelly Mosallaei and Melissa Youngpeter on Their Inclusion in 2024 Best Lawyers in America!

    Limited Number of Insurance-Related Bills Passed by 2014 Hawaii Legislature

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

    Contract Terms Can Impact the Accrual Date For Florida’s Statute of Repose

    Let it Shine: California Mandates Rooftop Solar for New Residential Construction

    Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”

    New WOTUS Rule

    Loss of Use From Allegedly Improper Drainage System Triggers Defense Under CGL Policy

    Traub Lieberman Partner Jonathan Harwood Obtains Summary Judgment Determining Insurer Has No Duty to Defend or Indemnify

    Court of Appeals Confirms that King County Superior Court’s Jury Selection Process Satisfies Due Process Requirements
    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

    Connecticut Appellate Court Breaks New Ground on Policy Exhaustion

    April 26, 2021 —
    The Connecticut Appellate Court recently issued a wide-ranging opinion, Continental Casualty Co. v. Rohr, Inc.,[1] which significantly extended the current restrictive view on when a general liability policy can be considered exhausted so as to trigger overlying excess coverage. The case marks a further step away from Judge Augustus Hand’s almost-century-old ruling in Zeig v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.,[2] which held that an underlying policy could be “exhausted” by a below-limits settlement as long as the insured was willing to “fill the gap” between the settlement amount and the limits of the policy.[3] In recent years, courts in California and elsewhere have increasingly walked back Zeig’s broad ruling – holding in Qualcomm v. Certain Underwriters,[4] for example, that an insured’s below-limits settlement with primary carriers does not exhaust the limits of primary coverage, or allow the insured to access overlying excess coverage.[5] Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas Construction Firm Officials Sentenced in Contract-Fraud Case

    August 07, 2018 —
    Two top officials of a Texas construction company—Honest, Experienced, Reliable Contracting Solutions LLC—have been sentenced to federal prison terms for defrauding the State Dept. through a plan to steer more than $1 million in contracts to the company, the Dept. of Justice says. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

    Illinois Appellate Court Addresses Professional Services Exclusion in Homeowners Policy

    August 03, 2022 —
    In Stonegate Ins. Co. v. Smith, 2022 IL App (1st) 210931, the Insured was performing plumbing work at a multi-story townhouse when a fire ensued causing damage to the second story unit. Although a carpenter by trade, the Insured was performing plumbing work consisting of the replacement of a shower valve as a favor for a friend. To accomplish the task, the Insured utilized a small propane torch to attempt to remove the old water piping to the shower. In doing so, the insulation behind the bathroom wall caught fire and the flame spread upward to the neighboring unit. Stonegate had issued a homeowner’s policy to the Insured during the relevant time period. The homeowner's policy excluded coverage for property damage "[a]rising out of the rendering of or failure to render professional services." Subsequent to tender of the loss, Stonegate initiated a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it owned no duty to defend or indemnity pursuant to the professional services exclusions. In finding in favor of the Insured, the Court began its analysis by noting that the homeowner's policy did not define the term "professional services" such that it was the Court’s task to determine whether the Insured’s work qualified as a "professional service" for purposes of the exclusion. The Court further prefaced its holding by stating that for an exclusionary clause to effectively deny coverage, its applicability must be clear and free from doubt because any doubts as to coverage will be resolved in favor of the insured. Looking to Illinois case precedent, the Court found that the term "professional service" is not limited to services for which the person performing them must be licensed by a governmental authority. Rather, "professional services" encompass any business activity conducted by an insured that (1) involves specialized knowledge, labor, or skill, and (2) is predominantly mental or intellectual as opposed to physical or manual in nature. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

    ADP Says Payrolls at Companies in U.S. Increase 200,000

    October 02, 2015 —
    Companies stepped up hiring in September, indicating the U.S. job market is standing firm in the face of weaker global demand, according to a private report based on payrolls. A 200,000 increase in employment followed a revised 186,000 rise in the prior month, figures from the ADP Research Institute showed Wednesday. The median projection of economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for an advance of 190,000. The additions to company headcounts are consistent with resilient demand in the U.S. even as some industries face challenges of weaker overseas sales. Labor Department data on Friday are projected to show payroll gains accelerated this month compared with August. “The U.S. job machine continues to produce jobs at a strong and consistent pace,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania, said in a statement. Moody’s produces the figures with ADP. “Despite job losses in the energy and manufacturing industries, the economy is creating close to 200,000 jobs per month. At this pace, full employment is fast approaching.” Estimates in the Bloomberg survey ranged from gains of 120,000 to 215,000 after a previously reported August advance of 190,000. Goods Producers Goods-producing industries, which include manufacturers and builders, increased headcounts by 12,000, the ADP report showed. Hiring in construction climbed by 35,000, almost twice the 18,000 gain a month earlier. Factories cut 15,000 jobs in September, which was the biggest decline since December 2010. Payrolls at service providers increased by 188,000. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sho Chandra, Bloomberg

    Delays Caused When Government (Owner) Pushes Contractor’s Work Into Rainy / Adverse Weather Season

    January 13, 2020 —
    There are a number of horizontal construction projects where a contractor’s sequence of work and schedule is predicated on avoiding the rainy season (or certain force majeure events). The reason is that the rainy season will result in delays due to the inability to work (and work efficiently) during the adverse weather (including flooding caused by the weather). If the work is pushed into the rainy season, is such delay compensable if the government (or owner) delayed the project that pushed work out into the rainy season? It very well can be. For example, in Meridian Engineering Co. v. U.S., 2019 WL 4594233 (Fed. Cl. 2019), a contractor was hired by the Army Corps of Engineers to construct a flood control project for a channel in Arizona. Due to delays, including those caused by the government, the project was pushed into the monsoon season, which caused additional delays largely due to flooding caused by the heavy rain. One issue was whether such delays were compensable to the contractor – the government raised the argument that the contractor assumed the risk of potential flooding from the rainy season. The Court found this argument unconvincing:
    [The contractor’s] initial construction schedule planned for a completion of the channel invert work, a necessary step in protecting the site from flooding, to be completed by late June 2008…[M]any issues arose in the project’s early stages that led to cumulative substantial delay, including those caused by the government’s failure….The government cannot now claim that [the contractor] assumed the risk of flooding from monsoon season when the government was largely responsible for [the contractor’s] inability to complete the project prior to the beginning of the monsoon season. Simply put, the government cannot escape liability for flood damages when the government is responsible for causing the contractor to be working during the flood-prone season. Meridian Engineering, 2019 WL at *7 (internal citations omitted)
    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

    Replacement of Gym Floor Due to Sloppy Paint Job is Not Resulting Loss

    January 02, 2024 —
    The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment finding damage to the gym floor due to a poor paint job was not a resulting loss. Bob Robinson Commercial Flooring, Inc. v. RLI Ins,. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196105 (D. Ark. Nov. 1, 2023). Bob Robinson Commercial Flooring (BRCF) submitted a bid to the general contractor, Nabholz Construction Corporation, to install a vinyl athletic floor and striping at a middle school. The job also included the painting of a "Wildcat" logo the main gym floor. Therefore, BRCF's job was to install floors with proper painting and striping. Robert Liles and Robert Lines Parking Lot Services was the subcontractor hired to do the painting and striping. BRCF did not supervise or inspect Liles' work while it was ongoing. Nabholz informed BRCF that there were problems with the floor painting, including crooked lines, incorrect markings, misplacement of the three point lines for the basketball surface, drips, smudges, etc. The gym floor was eventually rejected due to the nature of the vinyl flooring, once primer and paint were applied, the paint could not be removed and repainted. BRCF had to hire a new subcontractor to remove the flooring, install new flooring and then paint new lines. The cost for removal and replacement was $134,188.95. 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

    New Law Impacting Florida’s Statute of Repose

    June 29, 2017 —
    On June 14, 2017, Governor Scott signed House Bill 377 into law, clarifying that Florida’s ten-year Statute of Repose commences either when the work is completed or when final payment becomes due, whichever is latest. The new law resolves a problem for contractors created by a recent Florida court ruling that held the Statute of Repose to commence as late as when the owner made final payment. The applicable amendments to Florida Statute Section 95.11 take effect on July 1, 2017 and apply to all causes of action that accrue on or after that date. Perhaps the most critical component of a construction professional’s risk management program is the length of time that it is liable for the work performed on a project. While contractual warranty periods typically run one or two years from substantial completion, the true length of a contractor’s post-completion obligation is measured by the “Statute of Repose,” which establishes the period of time following the completion of construction that a lawsuit can be filed for construction defects. Reprinted courtesy of Meredith N. Reynolds, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and K. Stefan Chin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Reynolds may be contacted at mreynolds@pecklaw.com Mr. Chin may be contacted at kschin@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Trade Contract Revisions to Address COVID-19

    August 23, 2021 —
    Many trade contracts contain a clause that may protect trade contractors from catastrophic events like pandemics. These clauses are known as force-majeure clauses (covering acts of God). They basically say if these unavoidable events happen, the contractor is relieved of its obligations to the extent of the impact. However, many common industry forms have not been updated to specifically address COVID-19. (They may be waiting to see how the courts treat their existing language first.) So to ensure impacts from COVID-19 are covered, a trade contractor should consider expressly adding it to the force-majeure clause. See the example below. Notably, typical force-majeure clauses do not say the trade contractor gets more money. So an escalation clause could be added to the force-majeure clause. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com