BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failure
    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


    NY Project Produces America's First Utility Scale Wind Power

    New York Appellate Court Holds Insurers May Suffer Consequences of Delayed Payment of Energy Company Property and Business Interruption Claims

    Nuclear Energy Gets a Much-Needed Boost

    Five LEED and Green Construction Trends to Watch in 2020

    Florida Governor Bans Foreign Citizens From Buying Land in Florida

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    5 Questions about New York's Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act

    Mediating Contract Claims and Disputes at the ASBCA

    Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

    Legislative Update – The CSLB’s Study Under SB465

    The 2023 Term of the Supreme Court: Administrative and Regulatory Law Rulings

    Architect Not Responsible for Injuries to Guests

    California Court of Appeal Holds That the Right to Repair Act Prohibits Class Actions Against Manufacturers of Products Completely Manufactured Offsite

    U.S. Supreme Court Weighs in on Construction Case

    Appeals Court Affirms Civil Engineer Owes No Duty of Care to General Contractor

    Substantial Completion Explained: What Contractors & Owners Should Know

    Whose Lease Is It Anyway: Physical Occupancy Not Required in Landlord-Tenant Dispute

    Wait, You Want An HOA?! Restricting Implied Common-Interest Communities

    Court Finds Matching of Damaged Materials is Required by Policy

    Condo Building Increasing in Washington D.C.

    Feds Used Wire to Crack Las Vegas HOA Scam

    Thank You Once Again for the Legal Elite Election for 2022

    Flushing Away Liability: What the Aqua Engineering Case Means for Contractors and Subcontractors

    Environmental and Regulatory Law Update: New Federal and State Rulings

    New Orleans Reviews System After Storm Swamps Pumps

    Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick are JD Supra’s 2020 Readers’ Choice Award Recipients

    A Trio of Environmental Decisions from the Fourth Circuit

    Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

    Construction Contracts and The Uniform Commercial Code: When Does it Apply and Understanding the Pre-Dominant Factor Test

    Massachusetts District Court Holds Contractors Are Not Additional Insureds on Developer’s Builder’s Risk Policy

    DHS Awards Contracts for Border Wall Prototypes

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    Federal Court Opinion Has Huge Impact on the Construction Industry

    Nonresidential Construction Employment Expands in August, Says ABC

    How the Election Could Affect the Housing Industry: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    What to Know Before Building a Guesthouse

    Malerie Anderson Named to D Magazine’s 2023 Best Lawyers Under 40

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Stop - In the Name of the Law!”

    Treble Damages Awarded After Insurer Denies Coverage for Collapse

    Buyer's Demolishing of Insured's Home Not Barred by Faulty Construction Exclusion

    Obama Says Keystone Decision May Be Announced in Weeks or Months

    Arizona Contractor Designs Water-Repellant Cabinets

    Minnesota Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade for the Second Time

    Solicitor General’s Views to Supreme Court on Two Circuit Court Rulings that Groundwater Can be Considered “Waters of the United States”

    Chinese Millionaire Roils Brokers Over Shrinking Mansion

    2022 Construction Outlook: Continuing Growth But at Slower Pace

    New York Appellate Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

    A Few Green Building Notes

    "On Second Thought"

    Limitations on the Ability to Withdraw and De-Annex Property from a Common Interest Community
    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

    Certificates as Evidence of Additional Insured Coverage Are All the Rage, But You Deserve Better

    August 30, 2021 —
    Consider the following scenario: the construction project is ready to proceed. The deal is done. The agreements have all been carefully crafted, with detailed provisions on insurance dedicated to reducing risk. Those provisions require the downstream trade contractors to furnish certificates of insurance listing the owner and prime contractor as additional insureds on the downstream contractor’s policies of insurance. A provision in the prime contract further requires the prime contractor to provide the owner with a certificate of insurance showing the owner as an additional insured on the prime contractor’s policies. At the ceremonial ground-breaking and right before work commences, the downstream contractors deliver their insurance certificates to the prime contractor and the prime contractor delivers its certificate plus the downstream certificates to the owner. From there, each insurance certificate will begin its final destination to the project file (either electronic or physical) where, with any luck, it will serve the regular stint before being discarded after the project’s successful conclusion. Otherwise, it will be retrieved under much stress and heavy scrutiny. The acceptance of insurance certificates is often viewed as standard industry practice, but should it be? The answer is a resounding “no.” There are many form development and construction agreements in circulation that deem insurance certificates to be acceptable evidence of insurance. But, a certificate of insurance should not be relied upon because it does not mean that insurance has been placed. You deserve real evidence that the requisite additional insured coverage is in place (in the form of a policy endorsement), and here is why. Reprinted courtesy of Joseph L. Cohen, Fox Rothschild, W. Mason, Fox Rothschild and Sean Milani-nia, Fox Rothschild Mr. Cohen may be contacted at jlcohen@foxrothschild.com Mr. Mason may be contacted at wmason@foxrothschild.com Mr. Milani-nia may be contacted at smilani@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Excess Must Defend After Primary Improperly Refuses to Do So

    August 13, 2014 —
    The excess insurer had a duty to defend after the primary carrier improperly refused its defense obligations. IMG Worldwide, Inc. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13703 (6th Cir. July 15, 2014). IMG was sued for over $300,000,000 for alleged fraud, conversion, civil theft and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act (FDUTPA). The lawsuit stemmed from a real estate development project. The plaintiffs had invested in the project and alleged that the developer had sold them undeveloped properties with the promise they would be developed. IMG was a consultant on the project and also licensed to the developer the use of the IMG name and logo in marketing materials. IMG had no contractual obligation to actually develop the property or finance the project. IMG sought coverage from its primary carrier, Great Divide, and from its excess carrier, Westchester. Both denied coverage and refused to defend. 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

    West Virginia Wild: Crews Carve Out Corridor H Through the Appalachian Mountains

    May 08, 2023 —
    When crews with Kokosing Construction Co. began a $209-million design-build contract—the largest of its kind in West Virginia—in 2015, they first had to build roads in order to build the actual road called Corridor H. Reprinted courtesy of Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Two Texas Cities Top San Francisco for Property Investors

    October 22, 2014 —
    Houston and Austin are the most attractive U.S. markets for buying and developing real estate, topping San Francisco, as growth potential in the Texas cities draws investors from popular coastal areas, a survey shows. The Northern California city ranked third, down from No. 1 last year, according to a report released today by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the Urban Land Institute. Denver and Dallas-Fort Worth rounded out the five markets offering the best prospects for investors in 2015, the poll of more than 1,400 people in the real estate business shows. Manhattan slipped out of the top 10 to rank 14th. Some non-coastal markets are drawing more property investors partly because they offer higher yields than places such as San Francisco and Manhattan, which led the recovery from the financial crisis. The smaller cities also are benefiting from employment growth and increasing numbers of people moving into urban centers, according to Mitch Roschelle, a partner and U.S. real estate advisory practice leader at PricewaterhouseCoopers in New York. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Louis, Bloomberg
    Mr. Louis may be contacted at blouis1@bloomberg.net

    Being deposed—not just for dictators! Depositions in the construction lawsuit (Law & Order: Hard Hat files Part 5)

    January 17, 2013 —
    My husband always finds it amusing when I talk about going “to depose” somebody. He wants to know just exactly what sort of coup d’etat I am planning. Despite the awkward language, the deposition process is not supposed to feel like water boarding, although if you don’t know what to expect it can be more miserable than truly necessary. Simply put, a deposition is a chance for the other side’s lawyer to make you answer a whole bunch of questions (some relevant, some seemingly irrelevant) under oath. That is, first you put your hand on the Bible and swear (or affirm) to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. In reality, depositions serve a variety of purposes– they educate the lawyers about the facts of the case, they give a preview of how you would “present” to a jury (i.e., would a jury like and believe you?), and they can be used to position a case for certain later dispositive motions (that is, summary judgment– stay tuned for Part 8 of the series on that issue). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback
    Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    Labor Development Impacting Developers, Contractors, and Landowners

    June 25, 2019 —
    It is unlawful for unions to secondarily picket construction sites or to coercively enmesh neutral parties in the disputes that a union may have with another employer. This area of the law is governed by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the federal law that regulates union-management relations and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), the federal administrative agency that is tasked with enforcing the NLRA. But NLRB decisions issued during the Obama administration have allowed a union to secondarily demonstrate at job sites and to publicize their beefs over the use of non-union contractors there, provided the union does not actually “picket” the site. In those decisions, the NLRB narrowed its definition of unlawful “picketing,” thereby, limiting the scope of unlawful activity prohibited by law. Included in such permissible nonpicketing secondary activity is the use of stationary banners or signs and the use of inflatable effigies, typically blow-up rats or cats, designed to capture the public’s attention at an offending employer’s job site or facilities. A recently released NLRB advice memo, however, signals the likely reversal of those earlier decisions and that contractors and owners may now be able to stop such harassing union job site tactics simply by filing a secondary boycott unfair labor practice change with the NLRB. The 18 page memo, dated December 20, 2018 (and released to the public on May 14, 2019), directs the NLRB’s Region 13 to issue a complaint against the Electrician’s Union in a dispute coming out of Chicago where the union erected a large, inflatable effigy, a cat clutching a construction worker by the neck, and posted a large stationary banner proclaiming its dispute to be with the job’s general contractor over the use of a non-union electrical sub at the job site’s entrance. Though not an official Board decision, the memo suggests the NLRB General Counsel’s (GC) belief that the earlier Obama era decisions may have been wrongly decided and should be reconsidered by the NLRB on the theories that the Union’s nonpicketing conduct was tantamount to unlawful secondary picketing, that it constituted “signal” picketing that unlawfully induced or encouraged the employees of others to cease working with the subs or that it constituted unlawful coercion. Reprinted courtesy of John Bolesta, Sheppard Mullin and Keahn Morris, Sheppard Mullin Mr. Bolesta may be contacted at jbolesta@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Morris may be contacted at kmorris@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution

    August 29, 2022 —
    While I have not performed exhaustive research into the origin of anti-concurrent causation (“ACC”) endorsements on insurance policies, or how or when they migrated from first-party property policies to commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies, they have done so. The result for Colorado’s construction professionals may rear its ugly head as an unwelcome and surprise outright declination of coverage for construction defect claims. ACC endorsements state that if there are two causes of damage: one of which is covered by a policy and one of which is not, the carrier can invoke the ACC endorsement to disclaim coverage for all of the damage. An exemplar ACC endorsement is ISO Form CG 21 67, entitled “Fungi or Bacteria Exclusion.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    BWB&O’s Los Angeles Office Obtains Major Victory in Arbitration!

    July 25, 2022 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara Partner Patrick Au and Senior Associate Theresa Mallen recently achieved a major victory in binding Arbitration. The subject action involved a construction project in the backyard of homeowner’s residence. Homeowner maintained that BWB&O’s contractor client abandoned the project. Furthermore, homeowner alleged that the work performed by BWB&O’s client was deficient. The primary construction defect claim is that the pool deck is not properly sloped which is preventing surface water from running off the top of the retaining wall as designed. The Arbitrator ultimately sided with BWB&O’s client finding that BWB&O’s client did not abandon the project, but rather was terminated by homeowner. Additionally, BWB&O successfully proved that despite the fact that the three pertinent elevations that determine the slope of the concrete pool slab were pre-established before BWB&O’s client even got on the project, that BWB&O’s client properly installed the concrete pool slab and would have established the necessary slope of the pool deck had it not been terminated from the project. Homeowner asserted many other secondary construction defect claims and the Arbitrator found in BWB&O’s client’s favor on each and every issue. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP