BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expert
    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


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

    Bid Bonds: The First Preventative Measure for Your Project

    Veterans Day – Thank You for Your Service

    Keeping Your Workers Safe When Air Quality Isn't

    With an Eye Already in the Sky, Crane Camera Goes Big Data

    Suffolk Construction Drywall Suits Involve Claim for $3 Million in Court Costs

    Repairs to Water Infrastructure Underway After Hurricane Helene

    Message from the Chair: Kelsey Funes (Volume I)

    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

    Hurdles with Triggering a Subcontractor Performance Bond

    6,500 Bridges in Ohio Allegedly Functionally Obsolete or Structurally Deficient

    New York Governor Expected to Sign Legislation Greatly Expanding Recoverable Damages in Wrongful Death Actions

    Texas Jury Finds Presence of SARS-CoV-2 Virus Causes “Physical Loss or Damage” to Property, Awards Over $48 Million to Baylor College of Medicine

    New Mexico Adopts Right to Repair Act

    Pine Island Bridge in Place as Florida Pushes Barrier Island Access in Ian's Wake

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

    California Contractor Tests the Bounds of Job Order Contracting

    BWB&O Partner Tyler Offenhauser and Associate Lizbeth Lopez Won Their Motion for Summary Judgment Based on the Privette Doctrine

    The Contract Disputes Act: What Every Federal Government Contractor Should Know

    Sixth Circuit Lifts Stay on OSHA’s COVID-19 Temporary Emergency Standards. Supreme Court to Review

    New Illinois Supreme Court Trigger Rule for CGL Personal Injury “Offenses” Could Have Costly Consequences for Policyholders

    Giving Insurance Carrier Prompt Notice of Claim to Avoid “Untimely Notice” Defense

    Traub Lieberman Senior Trial Counsel Timothy McNamara Wins Affirmation of Summary Judgment Denial

    Only Two Weeks Until BHA’s Texas MCLE Seminar in San Antonio

    Feds OK $9B Houston Highway Project After Two-Year Pause

    New York Court Finds Insurers Cannot Recover Defense Costs Where No Duty to Indemnify

    Another Reason to Love Construction Mediation (Read: Why Mediation Works)

    Hundreds of Coronavirus Coverage Cases Await Determination on Consolidation

    Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

    Warren Renews Criticism of Private Equity’s Role in Housing

    Construction Defect Bill Introduced in California

    Slow Down?

    Claims Made Insurance Policies

    Testing Your Nail Knowledge

    Before Celebrating the Market Rebound, Builders Need to Read the Fine Print: New Changes in Construction Law Coming Out of the Recession

    California insured’s duty to cooperate and insurer’s right to select defense counsel

    Limiting Plaintiffs’ Claims to a Cause of Action for Violation of SB-800

    New ConsensusDocs 242 Design Professional Change Order Form Helps Facilitate Compensation for Changes in Design Services

    Notes from the Nordic Smart Building Convention

    Five New Laws to Know Before They Take Effect On Jan. 1, 2022

    Hunton’s Geoffrey Fehling Confirmed to DC Bar Foundation’s Young Lawyers Network Leadership Council

    Feds Move To Indict NY Contractor Execs, Developer, Ex-Cuomo Aide

    Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability Cannot Be Disclaimed or Waived Under Any Circumstance

    Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (09/12/23) – Airbnb’s Future in New York City, MGM Resorts Suffer Cybersecurity Incident, and Insurance Costs Hitting Commercial Real Estate

    New Utah & Colorado Homebuilder Announced: Jack Fisher Homes

    The Fair Share Act Impacts the Strategic Planning of a Jury Trial

    Sometimes You Just Need to Call it a Day: Court Finds That Contractor Not Entitled to Recover Costs After Public Works Contract is Invalidated

    Owner’s Slander of Title Claim Against Contractor Recording Four Separate Mechanics Liens Fails Under the Anti-SLAPP Statute

    Consultant Says It's Time to Overhaul Construction Defect Laws in Nevada
    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

    New Research Shows Engineering Firms' Impact on Economy, Continued Optimism on Business Climate

    October 28, 2024 —
    WASHINGTON – The ACEC Research Institute – the leading source of original research for the business of engineering – released the results of two important studies on the current and future state of the engineering industry, and its role in the overall U.S. economy. The reports, the 2024 Economic Assessment of the Engineering & Design Services Industry and the Engineering Business Sentiment Report for 2024 Q4, both point to continued optimism for the industry and its firms, though somewhat softened compared to previous quarters. "This research shows the outsized impact the engineering industry has on the American economy," said ACEC Research Institute Chair Mike Carragher. "As the engineering industry's contributions grow year over year, the Institute's research helps firm executives position their businesses for a successful future." All told, the industry added $656 billion to the U.S. GDP in 2023, supported well over five million jobs directly or indirectly, and contributed $92 billion to federal tax coffers, with an additional $44 billion in state and local taxes. Overall, the report found that the engineering and design services industry has continued to build on its year-over-year post-COVID gains, growing 5.5% in 2023 to $436 billion, with much of that growth driven by infrastructure projects. Non-residential and non-building construction, flush with government funding through the IIJA and Inflation Reduction Act, remained on an upward trajectory. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Lien Claimant’s Right to Execute against Bond Upheld in Court of Appeals

    February 10, 2012 —

    Stonewood v. Infinity Homes is a simple construction dispute over a matter of about $9,000.00. But sometimes these tiny little disputes turn into expensive legal battles over mere procedural quivering. In Stonewood, a small subcontractor won a big victory yesterday when the Divison 1 Court of Appeals upheld its judgment against a lien release bond posted by an owner.

    Infinity Homes contracted with Stonewood Design to lay tile in one of its customer’s homes. Stonewood did the work, but Infinity withheld roughly $9,000.00 of the contract sums for what it alleged were trade damages left on the tile. The two parties were unable to come to an agreement over payment and Stonewood proceeded with a lien under RCW 60.04. It then filed an action to enforce the lien against the homeowner, Infinity and its bonding company.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    December 17, 2024 —
    Construction projects are inherently complex, and insurance coverage plays a crucial role in managing risks, especially when unforeseen issues arise. The case of Acuity v. Kinsale demonstrates the tangled web of insurance obligations, especially when multiple insurers provide coverage for a single event. This case, involving Monarch Stucco, Inc., Acuity, and Kinsale Insurance Company, sheds light on the challenges that contractors, subcontractors, and insurers may face when disputes over liability and coverage occur. The Background of the Case At the heart of this dispute lies a construction defect at a retirement community project in Lakewood, Colorado. Monarch Stucco, Inc. (“Monarch”), a subcontractor hired by GH Phipps Construction Company (“Phipps”), was responsible for stucco work on the project. Unfortunately, defects in the building’s envelope system, particularly Monarch’s stucco work, led to significant damage and costly repairs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Court Denies Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Collapse Claim

    January 20, 2020 —
    Facing yet another collapse claim based upon alleged poorly mixed cement, the Federal District Court in Connecticut denied the insurer's motion to dismiss. Oliveria v. Safeco Ins Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147256 (D. Conn. Aug. 29, 2019). In 1993, the insureds' purchased their home that had been built in 1986. Safeco insured the property. In February 2017, the insureds noticed that the basement walls had a series of cracks. They consulted professionals and learned that the cracking was due to a chemical compound found in certain concrete walls constructed in the late 1980s with concrete most likely from the J. J. Mottes Concrete Company. The insureds submitted a claim to Safeco for the substantial impairment to the structural integrity of their basement walls. Safeco denied the claim. The insureds filed suit. Safeco moved to dismiss. 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

    Replevin Actions: What You Should Know

    November 08, 2021 —
    A contractor client of White and Williams recently found itself in a prickly situation. They had default terminated a subcontractor on a major commercial project and withheld payment to that subcontractor on an outstanding invoice as permitted under the terms of the subcontract until the project was completed. Clearly irate over being terminated, the subcontractor walked-off of the project with thousands of dollars’ worth of project materials and equipment that had been paid for by the owner. While on some projects this may amount to nothing more than an annoyance or inconvenience, in this case it was a significant problem because some of the wrongfully removed materials were custom manufactured overseas and not easily replaceable. The client therefore needed to take immediate action to retrieve the stolen materials so that the project would not be delayed. Specifically, it needed to file a replevin action against the subcontractor. A replevin action is a little known but powerful area of the law. In its simplest terms, replevin is a procedure whereby seized goods may be provisionally restored to their owner pending the outcome of an action to determine the rights of the parties concerned. The requirements of a replevin action differ by jurisdiction. For example, in Pennsylvania, the Rules of Civil Procedure devote an entire section to replevin actions and spell out in precise detail the steps that must be taken. While you should be sure to strictly comply with the rules in your jurisdiction, here are a few general points to keep in mind:
    • Where to File: A replevin action is typically commenced by filing a complaint in the appropriate jurisdiction. Generally speaking, it is best to file the action in the jurisdiction where the improperly seized materials are being held. If that location is unknown, you can also typically file the action in the jurisdiction where the project is located.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig H. O'Neill, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. O'Neill may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com

    Wall Street Is Buying Starter Homes to Quietly Become America’s Landlord

    February 27, 2023 —
    Javier Vidana started out as a real estate agent in 2013, when Arizona’s Salt River Valley seemed wide open. It was the aftermath of a housing market crash that had seen the typical home value in the Phoenix metro area fall more than 50%, and a single parent with good credit could tap loan programs geared toward first-time homeowners and find a pretty decent place to live. For Vidana, the challenge was convincing potential clients that a house was something they wanted to own. “We were on the phone begging people to buy,” he says. “There was no buyer confidence whatsoever.” The economy crawled forward, and the housing market with it. Vidana made a specialty of tutoring young buyers on real estate basics. Soon he was supplementing his commission income by selling how-to PDFs on his website and collecting ad revenue on his YouTube channel. Then the pandemic sparked a boom that gave him something new to explain. Americans responded to the work-from-home era by house shopping, and no big city was hotter than Phoenix. The median home was worth about $285,000 at the beginning of the pandemic; it was valued at $435,000 two years later. It wasn’t unheard of for a seller to receive 50 offers or more, or for a prospective buyer to make offers on a dozen different homes before finally closing a deal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Clark, Bloomberg

    Texas Federal Court Upholds Professional Services Exclusion to Preclude Duty to Defend

    March 16, 2020 —
    In Project Surveillance, Inc. v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, No. 4:19-CV-03324, 2020 WL 292247 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2020), a Texas federal court held that a professional services exclusion in a commercial general liability policy precluded Travelers’ duty to defend its insured. The underlying lawsuit was a wrongful death action brought by the family of a worker killed on a construction site. Project Surveillance was present at the construction site “to provide safety supervision or other services.” The underlying lawsuit alleged that Project Surveillance negligently failed to inspect or adequately inspect the project and failed to warn or adequately warn the decedent of a dangerous condition. The underlying lawsuit also alleged that Project Surveillance was negligent in failing to stop work. At the time of the incident, Project Surveillance had commercial general liability insurance through Travelers and professional liability insurance through RLI. RLI agreed to defend Project Surveillance in the underlying lawsuit. Travelers, however, denied owing a duty to defend or indemnify based on an exclusion for “bodily injury” arising out of the rendering or failure to render any “professional service.” The Traveler policy defined the term “professional services” to mean any service requiring specialized skill or training, including “failure to prepare [. . .] any warning,” “supervision,” “inspection,” “control,” “surveying activity or service,” “job site safety,” “construction administration,” and “monitoring [. . .] necessary to perform and of [those] services.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

    Benefit of the Coblentz Agreement and Consent Judgment

    August 26, 2024 —
    If you are not familiar with the concept of what is commonly known as a Coblentz agreement relative to an insurance coverage dispute, review these prior postings (here and here and here). This is a good-to-know agreement if you are a claimant and need to consider an avenue of collection if the insured’s carrier denies coverage out of the gate (meaning the carrier has denied both the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify). A recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals opinion demonstrates the Coblentz agreement concept. In Barrs v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 2024 WL 3673089 (11th Cir. 2024), an owner asserted a construction defect claim against its contractor. The owner hired the contractor to deconstruct a building and the contractor hired a demolition subcontractor. The owner noticed work was not being performed and materials (e.g., lumber) were missing; the demolition subcontractor had stolen materials. The subcontractor was terminated, and the owner claimed the contractor’s negligence allowed the theft and delayed his project. The contractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) insurer notified the insured-contractor that coverage did not exist and refused to defend the contractor. The owner sued the contractor under various theories of liability. The owner and contractor entered into a settlement agreement (i.e., the Coblentz agreement) where the contractor “admitted liability in the amount of $557,500.00….A consent judgment was entered against [the contractor] that closely tracked the settlement agreement but did not indicate which portion of the damages award was attributed to which claims. The agreement also assigned [owner] and all of [the contractor’s] rights to claim coverage and to recover available funds under [the contractor’s CGL policy].” 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