BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineers
    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


    Hawaii Construction Defect Law Increased Confusion

    Maryland Court Affirms Condo Association’s Right to Sue for Construction Defects

    NAHB Speaks Out Against the Clean Water Act Expansion

    First Look at Long List of AEC Firms Receiving PPP Loans

    Does Arbitration Apply to Contemporaneously Executed Contracts (When One of the Contracts Does Not Have an Arbitration Provision)?

    Hyundai to Pay 47M to Settle Construction Equipment's Alleged Clean Air Violations

    Henderson Land to Spend $839 Million on Hong Kong Retail Complex

    Repairs Could Destroy Evidence in Construction Defect Suit

    City in Ohio Sues Over Alleged Roof Defects

    Courts Favor Arbitration in Two Recent Construction Dispute Cases

    ‘Like a War Zone’: Malibu Fire Ravages Multimillion-Dollar Homes

    Nationwide Immigrant Strike May Trigger Excusable Delay and Other Contract Provisions

    Know What You’ve Built: An Interview with Timo Makkonen of Congrid

    Hawaii Supreme Court Reaffirms an "Accident" Includes Reckless Conduct, Finds Green House Gases are Pollutants

    Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

    Improperly Installed Flanges Are Impaired Property

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Illinois Federal Court Determines if Damages Are Too Remote

    South Carolina’s New Insurance Data Security Act: Pebbles Before a Landslide?

    Texas Supreme Court Finds Payment of Appraisal Award Does Not Absolve Insurer of Statutory Liability

    Residential Building Sector: Peaking or Soaring?

    The New York Lien Law - Top Ten Things You Ought to Know

    Prejudice to Insurer After Late Notice of Hurricane Damage Raises Issue of Fact

    Manhattan Gets First Crowdfunded Condos

    Subcontractor’s Claim against City Barred by City’s Compliance with Georgia Payment Bond Statute

    Justice Dept., EPA Ramp Up Environmental Justice Enforcement

    Key Legal Considerations for Modular Construction Contracts

    Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage

    Deadlines. . . They’re Important. Project Owner Risks Losing Claim By Failing to Timely Identify “Doe” Defendant

    Subcontractor’s Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Rikus Locati Selected to 2024 Northern California Rising Stars!

    Minimum Wage on Federal Construction Projects is $10.10

    No Coverage for Foundation Collapse

    Is Modular Construction Destined to Fail?

    Brown and Caldwell Team with AECOM for Landmark Pure Water Southern California Program

    Safeguarding the U.S. Construction Industry from Unfair Competition Abroad

    Between Scylla and Charybids: The Mediation Privilege and Legal Malpractice Claims

    Vermont Supreme Court Reverses, Finding No Coverage for Collapse

    NLRB Hits Unions with One-Two Punch the Week Before Labor Day

    Approaching Design-Build Projects to Avoid (or Win) Disputes

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose in June at a Slower Pace

    Utah Digs Deep and Finds “Design Defect” Includes Pre-Construction Geotechnical Reports

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Recognized Among The Top 50 Construction Law Firms by Construction Executive

    How the New Dropped Object Standard Is Changing Jobsite Safety

    Milhouse Engineering and Construction, Inc. Named 2022 A/E/C Building a Better World Award Winner

    Default Should Never Be An Option

    Assessing Defective Design Liability on Federal Design-Build Projects

    Creeping Incrementalism in Downstream Insurance: Carriers are Stretching Standard CGL Concepts to Untenable Limits

    A Compilation of Quirky Insurance Claims
    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

    Understand and Define Key Substantive Contract Provisions

    March 23, 2020 —
    The following contract provisions should be clearly understood before undertaking any construction project commences. Force Majeure Often referred to as an “Act of God,” a force majeure is an event, typically beyond the parties’ control, that prevents performance under a contract. To determine if a contractor need a force majeure clause in its contract, it should ask whether there may be instances where events beyond the contractor’s control could impact its contractual performance? If so, it will want this clause. Courts currently treat force majeure as an issue of contractual interpretation, focusing on the express language in the contract. Consequently, the scope and applicability of a force majeure clause depends on the contract’s terms. Using broad language in a force majeure clause may help protect against unforeseen events. But to the extent possible, parties should describe with particularity the circumstances intended to constitute a force majeure. The law relating to force majeure also fairly consistently provides that parties cannot avoid contractual obligations because performance has become economically burdensome. Courts have refused to apply force majeure clauses where an event only affects profitability. Recent attempts to categorize tariffs on construction materials as a force majeure have failed. Unless a tariff or tax is specifically listed as a force majeure event, it is unlikely to constitute a force majeure because it only affects profitability. Reprinted courtesy of Phillip L. Sampson Jr. & Richard F. Whiteley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Broker for Homeowners Policy Has No Duty to Advise Insureds on Excess Flood Coverage

    November 02, 2017 —
    A broker who assisted the insureds in procuring a homeowners policy had no duty to advise the insureds to secure additional flood coverage. Ring v. Meeker Sharkey Assocs., LLC, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3458 (N.J. Super Ct. App. Div. Sept.26, 2017). The insureds owned two beachfront properties that were located in a designated flood zone. They secured homeowners and flood insurance through Meeker's predecessor. Subsequently, Meeker became the insureds' homeowners insurance broker while Willis, N.A. was their flood insurance broker. 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

    Ninth Circuit Holds Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Applies Beyond All-Risk Policies

    April 20, 2016 —
    The Ninth Circuit held that the efficient proximate cause doctrine is not limited to all-risk policies. Olin Corp. v. Continental Cas. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4905 (9th Cir. March 17, 2016). Olin operated a plant that produced industrial chemicals. Continental issued a policy covering the plant's boilers and machinery. In late 2008, the machinery was damaged. Continental denied coverage for damage to Olin's diaphragm cells, which were tanks containing metal cathodes covered by asbestos diaphragms. Continental argued that the damage to the cells was not covered because it was not caused by an "accident." The jury returned a verdict in favor of Olin. 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

    Use Your Instincts when Negotiating a Construction Contract

    August 07, 2018 —
    I have often discussed the more “mechanical” aspects of contract negotiation and drafting here at Construction Law Musings. However, there is another, less objective (possibly) and more “feel” oriented aspect to construction contracting that can have as big an impact on your construction project. What am I talking about? Your instinct as a construction professional when looking the other party in the eye and getting a feel for the company or individual with whom you are contracting. Why is this so important? Firstly, and this is a truism, no matter how well drafted your construction contract is (and it should be well drafted and reviewed by an experienced construction attorney), if the other party wishes to “play games” and not honor the terms of that contract, you could still very well end up in litigation with the attendant frustration and expense. Having a great looking, well thought out and at least reasonably “fair” construction contract may make the litigation process somewhat less painful but it does not completely avoid the risk of litigation. If the other party or parties to the contract decide not to pay you or perform as they promised, you are left to enforce whatever contract you have in place. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Illinois Court Assesses Factual Nature of Term “Reside” in Determining Duty to Defend

    October 30, 2023 —
    In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Guevara, 2023 IL App (1st) 221425-U, P2, the Illinois First District Court of Appeals addressed an insurance carrier’s duty to defend under a homeowners insurance policy. The underlying suit stemmed from an alleged injury suffered at a residence located in Berwyn, Illinois and owned by named insured Luz Melina Guevara, a defendant in the suit. After Guevara tendered the suit, State Farm filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Guevara because Guevara did not “reside” at the insured premises. The policy defined the "insured location" as the "residence premises," and residence premises was defined as "the one, two, three or four-family dwelling, other structures, and grounds or that part of any other building; where you reside and which is shown in the Declarations." In response to the underlying lawsuit, Guevara had filed an answer and affirmative defenses in which Guevara denied the allegation that "At all relevant times, [Guevara] resided in Berwyn, Cook County, Illinois." Guevara admitted that she owned the Berwyn property but denied that she "resided in, maintained and controlled the property". The declaratory judgment complaint alleged (among other things) that, based on admissions by Guevara in her answer, the Berwyn residence was not an "insured location" under the State Farm policy. State Farm moved for summary judgment at the trial court level on this ground and summary judgment was granted in State Farm’s favor. An appeal ensued wherein the parties disagreed as to whether there is a genuine issue of material fact that, under the language of the policy, State Farm had no duty to defend because the Berwyn property was not an "insured location" because she did not "reside" there. 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

    Haight has been named by Best Law Firms® as a Tier 1, 2 and 3 National Firm in Three Practice Areas in 2024

    November 27, 2023 —
    Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the Best Law Firms® (2024 Edition) with metro rankings in the following areas: Los Angeles
    • Metropolitan Tier 1
      • Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
    • Metropolitan Tier 2
      • Insurance Law
    • Metropolitan Tier 3
      • Workers’ Compensation Law – Claimants
    Orange County
    • Metropolitan Tier 1
      • Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Concludes That COVID-19 Losses Can Qualify as “Direct Physical Loss”

    September 28, 2020 —
    In a victory for policyholders, a federal district court found that COVID-19 can cause physical loss under business-interruption policies. In Studio 417, Inc., et al. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Co., No. 20-cv-03127-SRB (W.D. Mo. Aug. 12, 2020), the court rejected the argument often advanced by insurers that “all-risks” property insurance policies require a physical, structural alteration to trigger coverage. This decision shows that, with correct application of policy-interpretation principles and strategic use of pleading and evidence, policyholders can defeat the insurance industry’s “party line” arguments that business-interruption insurance somehow cannot apply to pay for the unprecedented losses businesses are experiencing from COVID-19, public-safety orders, loss of use of business assets, and other governmental edicts. The policyholders in Studio 417 operate hair salons and restaurants asserting claims for business interruption. In suing to enforce their coverage, the policyholders allege that, over the last several months, it is likely that customers, employees, and/or other visitors to the insured properties were infected with COVID-19 and thereby infected the insured properties with the virus. Their complaint asserts that the presence of COVID-19 “renders physical property in their vicinity unsafe and unusable.” Unlike some other complaints seeking to enforce such coverage, it also alleges that the presence of COVID-19 and government “Closure Orders” “caused a direct physical loss or direct physical damage” to their premises “by denying use of and damaging the covered property, and by causing a necessary suspension of operations during a period of restoration.” Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Jorge R. Aviles, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Aviles may be contacted at javiles@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Duty To Defend Construction Defect Case Affirmed, Duty to Indemnify Reversed In Part

    May 07, 2015 —
    The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's finding of a duty to defend, but reversed, in part, the insurer's duty to indemnify. Carithers v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5540 (11th Cir. April 7, 2015). After discovering a number of defects in their home, the Carithers sued their homebuilder, Cronk Duch Miller & Associates. Cronk Duch's insurer, Mid-Continent Casualty Company, refused to defend.The parties entered into a consent judgment for $90,000 in favor of the Carithers. Cronk Duch then assigned to the Carithers the right to collect the judgment from Mid-Continent. The Carithers then sued Mid-Continent. Florida law applied. Mid-Continent has issued four policies to Cronk Duch from March 2005 to October 2008. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the duty to defend issue. The underlying complaint alleged that the defects could not have been discovered until 2010, after the last policy period. The district court rejected Mid-Continent's argument that property damage occurred when it was discovered or when it reasonably could have been discovered. Therefore, summary judgment on the duty to defend was granted to the Carithers. 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