BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut building code 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


    What You Need to Know to Protect the Project Against Defect Claims

    Changes to Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code

    An Uncharted Frontier: Nevada First State to Prohibit Defense-Within-Limits Provisions

    Embattled SNC-Lavalin Files Ethics Appeal, Realigns Structure

    Brookfield to Start Manhattan Tower After Signing Skadden

    A Homeowner’s Subsequent Action is Barred as a Matter of Law by way of a Prior “Right to Repair Act” Claim Resolved by Cash Settlement for Waiver of all Known or Unknown Claims

    Hunton Insurance Team Wins Summary Judgment on Firm’s Own Hurricane Harvey Business Income Loss

    Duty to Defend Broadly Applies to Entire Action; Insured Need Not Apportion Defense Costs, Says Maryland Appeals Court

    A Few Green Building Notes

    An Architect Uses AI to Explore Surreal Black Worlds

    Insurer Fails to Establish Prejudice Due to Late Notice

    Texas Allows Wide Scope for Certificate of Merit

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule

    California Subcontractor Gets a Kick in the Rear (or Perhaps the Front) for Prematurely Recorded Mechanics Lien

    Suppliers of Inherently Dangerous Raw Materials Remain Excluded from the Protections of the Component Parts Doctrine

    Wells Fargo Shuns Peers’ Settlement in U.S in Mortgage

    Washington, DC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium Expires

    Harborside Condo Construction Defect Settlement Moves Forward

    Study Finds San Francisco Bay is Sinking Faster than Expected

    Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment on Conversion Claim Against Insurer

    Coverage Denied for Condominium Managing Agent

    Big Policyholder Win in Michigan

    Subcontractors Have a Duty to Clarify Ambiguities in Bid Documents

    General Contractors Must Plan to Limit Liability for Subcontractor Injury

    Florida’s Citizens Property Insurance May Be Immune From Bad Faith, But Is Not Immune From Consequential Damages

    Putting 3D First, a Model Bridge Rises in Norway

    Contractor May Be Barred Until Construction Lawsuit Settled

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case

    Compliance Doesn’t Pay: Compliance Evidence Inadmissible in Strict Liability Actions

    Nerves of Steel Needed as Firms Face Volatile Prices, Broken Contracts and Price-Gouging

    Appetite for Deconstruction

    Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Act Violations

    Don’t Fall in Trap of Buying the Cheapest Insurance Policy as it May be Bad for Your Business Risks and Needs

    Trump’s Infrastructure Weak

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Based on New Information …”

    Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House

    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Lets Broad General Release Stand in SB 800 Case

    Fall 2024 Legislative Update:

    World’s Biggest Crane Gets to Work at British Nuclear Plant

    Nevada Supreme Court Clarifies the Litigation Waiver of the One-Action Rule

    Close Enough Only Counts in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades

    Non-compliance With Endorsement Means No Indemnity Coverage

    Potential Extension of the Statutes of Limitation and Repose for Colorado Construction Defect Claims

    Montana Trial Court Holds That Youths Have Standing to Bring Constitutional Claims Against State Government For Alleged Climate Change-Related Harms

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces Three New Partners

    Personal Injury Claims – The Basics

    2018 California Construction Law Update

    Condominium Construction Defect Resolution in the District of Columbia

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

    Congratulations to San Diego Partner Johnpaul Salem and Senior Associate Scott Hoy for Obtaining a Complete Defense Verdict!

    November 13, 2023 —
    Partner Johnpaul Salem and Senior Associate Scott Hoy just concluded a 4-week trial defending a local renowned hotel in San Diego. Plaintiff alleged premises liability against BWB&O’s client arguing plaintiff was injured while riding in an elevator due to alleged negligent maintenance and inspection. Plaintiff brought in a “hired gun” elevator expert from Missouri and sought $25 million in damages for two fractured ankles, a compound tibia fracture, and lifelong CRPS/PTDS/anxiety. BWB&O argued any injuries sustained were a direct result of Plaintiff’s actions. After a passionate and powerful closing argument by Mr. Salem, attacking the foundation of Plaintiff’s expert’s opinions and presenting vigilance of the hotel in the safety of its guests, the jury unanimously ruled in BWB&O’s client’s favor. Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Court-Side Seat – Case Law Update (February 2022)

    March 06, 2022 —
    It is already early in 2022, but several important environmental cases have already been decided by the federal district and federal appellate courts. THE COURTS OF APPEAL The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit West Virginia State University Board of Governors v. The Dow Chemical Company, et al. On January 10, 2022, the court decided this case, in which Dow and the other defendants attempted to remove a state groundwater contamination lawsuit to federal court, citing the federal officer removal statute and the presence of a significant federal question. Both the federal district court and the appellate court rejected these arguments and remanded the lawsuit to the state court. For many years, Dow and other parties had been engaged in a RCRA hazardous waste cleanup at an industrial site located in Institute, West Virginia. RCRA permits and corrective action authorizations were issued or supervised by EPA. The plaintiffs complained that the groundwater cleanup, insofar as it affected their property, was deficient, which compelled them to supplement the ongoing federal cleanup with a lawsuit based on West Virginia causes of action and unique to their property. After a careful review of the record, the Fourth Circuit held that the defendants were not acting under the “subjection, guidance or control” of the EPA, and therefore the federal officer removal statute did not apply. Moreover, there was no federal question to resolve as the separate state lawsuit did not challenge a CERCLA cleanup nor did it arise from the RCRA remedial measures that had been taken. 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

    Update Relating to SB891 and Bond Claim Waivers

    June 10, 2015 —
    Several bills were passed and will go into effect on July 1, 2015 that affect the construction industry here in Virginia. The most interesting of these was an amendment to the mechanic’s lien statutes relating to waivers of lien rights. As I posted in March, SB891 amended the mechanic’s lien statute, Va. Code Section 43-3, to remove proactive waivers of lien and bond rights. This bill has been signed into law with a minor modification. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    The Simple Reason Millennials Aren't Moving Out Of Their Parents' Homes: They're Crushed By Debt

    February 26, 2015 —
    Millennials are not budging from their parents' basements, even though the job market is on the mend. One really big reason? Student loans. Last year, the rate of 25- to 34-year-olds living at home rose to 17.7 percent among men and 11.7 percent for women, Census data showed last week. That is a record high for both genders. Rising co-residence rates are correlated more closely with student debt than with factors like economic conditions and the housing market, according to a staff report in November from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The regional bank wrote about the trend today in its blog called "Liberty Street Economics." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nina Glinski, Bloomberg

    Las Vegas, Back From the Bust, Revives Dead Projects

    June 11, 2014 —
    For almost five years, the desert plot at the western edge of the Las Vegas valley was home to hulking steel skeletons -- ghostly ruins of a construction project halted by the recession. Now the 106-acre (43-hectare) site bustles with hundreds of workers building the first phase of Downtown Summerlin, an office, entertainment and retail complex that’s scheduled to open in October. Howard Hughes Corp. (HHC) revived the development last year after the previous owner, General Growth Properties Inc., shut it down in 2008. The commercial real estate market in Las Vegas, littered with vacant buildings and abandoned construction sites by overreaching developers during the U.S. property crash, is coming back to life as the local economy improves and tourists return to the nation’s gambling capital. Blackstone Group LP’s deal to buy the Cosmopolitan resort and Genting Bhd. (GENT)’s proposed resurrection of an abandoned project on Las Vegas Boulevard are further signs of investor confidence in the nascent recovery. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Louis, Bloomberg
    Mr. Louis may be contacted at blouis1@bloomberg.net

    Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

    July 30, 2019 —
    Arkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4] In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

    Specified Or Designated Operations Endorsement – Limitation of Insurance Coverage

    July 15, 2024 —
    Your commercial general liability (CGL) policy may contain a specified or designated operations endorsement. This does not operate as an exclusion but as a LIMITATION of coverage. The endorsement may provide that bodily injury or property damage ONLY applies to the operations or business described therein. Similarly, there may be a limitation of coverage for designated classifications or codes which has the same effect—limiting coverage to the classifications/codes listed therein. This is an important consideration, and you need to understand and watch out for such limitations of coverage. (These aren’t the only ones, but it’s important to appreciate that limitations of coverage operate to limit the coverage to which the CGL policy applies.) The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal dealt with this exact issue under Alabama law (although the same analysis would apply in numerous jurisdictions). In this case, a landscaper (the insured) had a CGL policy with a specified operations endorsement that limited coverage to landscaping operations. The landscaper was hired to install an in-ground trampoline in addition to site and landscaping operations at a house. A person got hurt using the trampoline and the landscaper was sued. The CGL insurer denied coverage outright (and, thus, any duty to defend) because the complaint asserted that the injury occurred from the landscaper’s assembly and installation of the trampoline, which was not a landscaping operation. Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the landscaper’s insurance application specified that the landscaper did not perform any recreational or playground equipment erection or construction, and the installation and assembly of a trampoline would constitute recreational or playground equipment. 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

    ConsensusDOCS Updates its Forms

    October 21, 2015 —
    As reported recently in ENR Magazine, among other publications, the ConsensusDOCS folks have updated their contract forms. Why is this news? First of all, it’s only been around three and a half years since these documents were officially released and this release is about 18 months sooner than anticipated (the original revision cycle was to be 5 years). Why the revision? According to my friend and counsel to ConsensusDOCS, Brian Perlberg, one major rationale is that “the economics of the construction industry today looks nothing like it did [in 2007.” Among the changes are several terminology changes (“constructor” instead of “contractor” for instance), the addition of mandatory green building design as a basic service (these forms already have a Green Building Addendum) if included in the Owner’s plan and the ability to provide for prevailing party attorney fees (before both sides of a dispute bore their own fees). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com