BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut hospital construction 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


    Caution to GCs! An Exception to Privette Can Leave You Open to Liability

    Four Things Construction Professionals Need to Know About Asbestos

    Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s

    A Property Boom Is Coming to China's Smaller Cities

    Dorian’s Wrath: How Event Cancellation Insurance Helps Businesses Recoup Losses from Severe Weather

    Chambers USA 2021 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Florida Self-Insured Retention Satisfaction and Made Whole Doctrine

    Toll Brothers Surges on May Gain in Deposits for New Homes

    More Musings From the Mediation Trenches

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

    It Was a Wild Week for Just About Everyone. Ok, Make that Everyone.

    Antitrust Walker Process Claims Not Covered Under Personal Injury Coverage for Malicious Prosecution

    Understanding Insurance Disputes in Construction Defect Litigation: A Review of Acuity v. Kinsale

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

    Bay Area Counties Issue Less Restrictive “Shelter in Place” Orders, Including for Construction

    Up in Smoke - 5th Circuit Finds No Coverage for Hydrochloric Acid Spill Based on Pollution Exclusion

    Documentation Important for Defending Construction Defect Claims

    Contractor May Be Barred Until Construction Lawsuit Settled

    Reinsurer's Obligation to Provide Coverage Determined Under English Law

    Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform: HB 17-1279 Approved by Colorado Legislature; Governor’s Approval Imminent

    Fifth Circuit Finds Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    How to Challenge a Project Labor Agreement

    Did the Court of Appeals Just Raise the Bar for California Contractors to Self-Report Construction-Related Judgments?

    Impairing Your Insurer’s Subrogation Rights

    Changes in the Law on Lien Waivers

    Ackman Group Pays $91.5 Million for Condo at NYC’s One57

    Hake Law Attorneys Join National Law Firm Wilson Elser

    Court Finds That SIR Requirements are Not Incorporated into High Level Excess Policies and That Excess Insurers’ Payment of Defense Costs is Not Conditioned on Actual Liability

    Insurer's Quote on Coverage for Theft by Hacker Creates Issue of Fact

    Facebook Posts “Not Relevant” Rules Florida Appeals Court

    U.K. Puts Tax on Developers to Fund Safer Apartment Blocks

    Affordable Global Housing Will Cost $11 Trillion

    The G2G Year in Review: 2021

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Construction Laborers Sue Contractors Over Wage Theft

    Collapse Claim Dismissed

    Safety Guidance for the Prevention of the Coronavirus on Construction Sites

    Nine Haight Attorneys Selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2021

    Report to Congress Calls for Framework to Cut Post-Quake Recovery Time

    CGL Insurer’s Duty to Defend Insured During Pre-Suit 558 Process: Maybe?

    Another Guilty Plea in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

    New York Considers Amendments to Construction Industry Wage Laws that Would Impose Significant Burden Upon Contractors

    Citigroup Reaches $1.13 Billion Pact Over Mortgage Bonds

    D.C. Decision Finding No “Direct Physical Loss” for COVID-19 Closures Is Not Without Severe Limitations

    A Primer on Suspension and Debarment for Federal Construction Projects

    Choice of Law Provisions in Construction Contracts

    The Economic Loss Rule: From Where Does the Duty Arise?

    The Final Frontier Opens Up New Business Opportunities for Private Contractors

    St Louis County Approves Settlement in Wrongful Death Suit

    One More Statutory Tweak of Interest to VA Construction Pros
    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. Drawing 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

    Blurred Lines: New York Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Privileged Documents in Connection with Pre-Denial Communications Prepared by Insurer's Coverage Counsel

    September 17, 2015 —
    In a recent decision, the New York Supreme Court clarified the scope of privileged documents with respect to communications prepared by an insurer’s counsel prior to issuing a denial of coverage letter. The coverage litigation at issue arose out of MF Global Inc.’s claims under fidelity bonds for losses incurred as a result of large trades made by former MF Global employee, Evan Dooley. The trades cost MF Global, Dooley’s former clearing firm, $141 million after it had to reimburse the CME Group, Inc. futures clearinghouse that handled the trade. The insurers that issued the fidelity bonds contested coverage and sued MF Global in 2009. The opinion underscores the fact that there is no “bright line” rule in New York with respect to disclosure of communications in the insurance context prior to the issuance of a coverage determination – the disclosure requirement will instead turn on what’s actually privileged. In addition, while retention of counsel may not serve as an automatic shield for all documents prepared prior to the coverage decision, insurers will not be required to disclose, among other things, communications which include an “indicia of the provision of legal services.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greg Steinberg, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Steinberg may be contacted at steinbergg@whiteandwilliams.com

    NY Project Produces America's First Utility Scale Wind Power

    December 23, 2023 —
    Despite financial gyrations in the U.S. offshore wind energy market that have caused project delays and cancellations over the past two years, America now has joined other world nations in having energy generated for the first time from a utility-scale facility. Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ninth Circuit Holds that 1993 Budget Appropriations Language Does Not Compel the Corps of Engineers to use 1987 Wetlands Guidance Indefinitely

    October 09, 2018 —
    On September 21, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided the case of Tin Cup, LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals (although all members concurred in the result) held that legislative language in a 1993 appropriations act does not require the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to continue to use its 1987 Clean Water Act (CWA) wetlands guidance beyond 1993. The Ninth Circuit noted that it approaches the interpretation of budget bills somewhat differently. 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

    Asserting Non-Disclosure Claim Involving Residential Real Property and Whether Facts Are “Readily Observable”

    September 29, 2021 —
    Under Florida law, there is a claim dealing with the purchase and sale of residential real property known as a Johnson v. Davis or a non-disclosure claim: “[W]here the seller of a home knows of facts materially affecting the value of the property which are not readily observable and are not known to the buyer, the seller is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer.” Lorber v. Passick, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1952a (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). A seller’s duty to disclose extends to a seller’s real estate agent/broker. Id. A non-disclosure claim is asserted by the buyer of residential real property when the buyer discovers defects or damages with the real property that he believes materially affects the value of the property. While there may be the sentiment these are easy claims to prove, they are not. Remember, a non-disclosure claim deals with facts that materially affect the value of residential real property and are NOT readily observable. The use of the language “readily observable” has been found to mean:
    “[I]nformation [that] is within the diligent attention of any buyer. To exercise diligent attention…a buyer would be required to investigate any information furnished by the seller that a reasonable person in the buyer’s position would investigate and take reasonable steps to ascertain the material facts relating to the property and to discovery them—if, of course, they are reasonably ascertainable.”
    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

    Crime Policy Insurance Quotes Falsely Represented the Scope of its Coverage

    July 13, 2020 —
    An Indiana businessman found out the hard way how far his insurance company was willing to go to avoid paying a claim after it misrepresented the coverage of a crime policy it sold to him. The quote for the policy indicated that it included coverage for losses resulting from computer hacking. Despite this representation, when the policyholder’s bank accounts were hacked, the insurer denied coverage on the ground that there was no provision for hacking coverage in the policy. Fortunately, the Indiana Court of Appeals recognized the insured’s right to argue before a jury that the insurer’s quotes falsely represented the scope of its coverage. In Metal Pro Roofing, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., Richard Cornett, principal of Metal Pro Roofing, LLC and Cornett Restoration, LLC (the “LLCs”), purchased a Cincinnati Insurance Company CinciPlus Crime XC+ Policy (the “Policy”). At the time Mr. Cornett purchased this coverage, and during all subsequent renewals, Cincinnati issued insurance quotes that stated:
    Cincinnati can insure your money and securities while at your premises, inside your bank and even off site in the custody of a courier. While you’ve taken precautions to protect your money and securities, you run the risk of loss from employees, robbers, burglars, computer hackers and even physical perils such as fire.
    Give yourself peace of mind with Cincinnati’s crime coverage to insure the money and securities you worked so hard to earn.
    Crime Expanded Coverage (XC®)Plus Endorsement $125.00.
    (Emphasis added.) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian J Clifford, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Mr. Clifford may be contacted at bjc@sdvlaw.com

    Supreme Court of California Rules That Trial Court Lacking Subject Matter Jurisdiction May Properly Grant Anti-SLAPP Motion on That Basis, and Award Attorney’s Fees

    January 19, 2017 —
    In Barry v. The State Bar of California (No. S214058 – 1/5/2017), the California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of the State Bar of California’s (“State Bar”) underlying anti-SLAPP motion (Code of Civil Procedure §425.16) on the grounds that plaintiff Patricia Barry (“Barry”), an attorney, had failed to show a probability of prevailing because, among other reasons, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Barry’s claims. The Court confirmed that the absence of subject matter jurisdiction did not prevent a trial court from basing a decision to grant an anti-SLAPP motion on that ground, or to award the prevailing defendant its attorney’s fees. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Structure of Champlain Towers North Appears Healthy

    August 04, 2021 —
    There is good news for the residents of the occupied Champlain Towers North, the 12-story residential condominium in Surfside, Fla., located a short distance up Collins Avenue from its near-twin Champlain Towers South, which failed unexpectedly June 24. The unstable remaining wing of the Champlain Towers South concrete structure was imploded July 4, after the partial progressive collapse that killed at least 94 people and left another 22 still missing. 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

    Sales Pickup Shows Healing U.S. Real Estate Market

    June 26, 2014 —
    Americans snapped up previously owned homes in May in the biggest monthly sales gain in almost three years, a sign the residential real estate market is regaining its footing after a stumble early in the year. Purchases climbed 4.9 percent, the biggest increase since August 2011, to a 4.89 million annualized rate, figures from the National Association of Realtors showed today in Washington. The level was the strongest since October. The report also showed price appreciation is slowing as more homes become available. A more balanced market, including a wider selection of properties, smaller price gains and still-low borrowing costs, may encourage more Americans to buy as employment strengthens. Improving demand will probably spur a pickup in construction, and builders such as Hovnanian Enterprises Inc. (HOV) are optimistic. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shobhana Chandra, Bloomberg
    Ms. Chandra may be contacted at schandra1@bloomberg.net