BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut engineering 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


    Eleventh Circuit Reverses Attorneys’ Fee Award to Performance Bond Sureties in Dispute with Contractor arising from Claim against Subcontractor Performance Bond

    Contractual Fee-Shifting in Litigation: Who Pays the Price?

    Manhattan to Add Most Office Space Since ’90 Over 3 Years

    U.S., Canada, Mexico Set New Joint Clean-Energy Goal

    Arctic Roads and Runways Face the Prospect of Rapid Decline

    California Court of Appeal Makes Short Work Trial Court Order Preventing Party From Supplementing Experts

    DHS Awards Contracts for Border Wall Prototypes

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 3: Standard Form Policy Exclusions

    CSLB “Fast Facts” for Online Home Improvement Marketplaces

    Congratulations to Walnut Creek Partner Bryan Stofferahn and Associate Jeffrey Schilling for Winning a Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Their Client, a Regional Grocery Store!

    Boston Contractor Faces More OSHA Penalties

    CDJ’s #2 Topic of the Year: Ewing Constr. Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2014 Tex. LEXIS 39 (Tex. Jan.17, 2014)

    Insurer Rejects Claim on Dolphin Towers

    Defenses Raised Three-Years Too Late Estop Insurer’s Coverage Denial

    Contract’s Definition of “Substantial Completion” Does Not Apply to Third Party for Purposes of SOL, Holds Court of Appeal

    Three Payne & Fears Attorneys Named 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    One More Mechanic’s Lien Number- the Number 30

    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

    Why a Challenge to Philadelphia’s Project Labor Agreement Would Be Successful

    Homebuilders See Record Bearish Bets on Shaky Recovery

    Ex-Engineered Products Firm Executive Convicted of Bid Rigging

    #7 CDJ Topic: Truck Ins. Exchange v. O'Mailia

    Courts Will Not Rewrite Your Post-Loss Property Insurance Obligations

    Architect Blamed for Crumbling Public School Playground

    Remembering Joseph H. Foster

    Connecticut Supreme Court Again Asked to Determine the Meaning of Collapse

    Reminder: Just Being Incorporated Isn’t Enough

    Bats, Water, Soil, and Bridges- an Engineer’s dream

    Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    White and Williams Defeats Policyholder’s Attempt to Invalidate Asbestos Exclusions

    Yellowstone Park Aims for Quick Reopening After Floods

    Hoboken Mayor Admits Defeat as Voters Reject $241 Million School

    Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

    California’s High Speed Rail Project. Are We Done With the Drama?

    Follow Up on Continental Western v. Shay Construction

    Watchdog Opens Cartel Probe Into Eight British Homebuilders

    Small Airport to Grow with Tower

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    No One to Go After for Construction Defects at Animal Shelter

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers – Two Recognized as Rising Stars

    Former NYC Condo Empire Executive Arrested for Larceny, Tax Fraud

    Whitney Stefko Named to ENR’s Top Young Professionals, formerly ENR’s Top 20 Under 40, in California

    Caltrans to Speak before California Senate regarding Bay Bridge Expansion

    Architect Plans to 3D-Print a Two-Story House

    Standard Lifetime Shingle Warranties Aren’t Forever

    No Coverage for Repairs Made Before Suit Filed

    Still Going, After All This Time: the Sacketts, EPA and the Clean Water Act

    EPA Can't Evade Enviro Firm's $2.7M Cleanup Site Pay Claim, US Court Says

    Following California Law, Federal Court Adopts Horizontal Allocation For Asbestos Coverage
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Can an Architect, Hired by an Owner, Be Sued by the General Contractor?

    September 10, 2014 —
    As is often the answer in this blog, maybe. And, it will likely depend on which state’s law is applied. Over the last few weeks, courts around the country have reached differing conclusions on whether a general contractor may sue an architect that it did not hire. Here’s the situation: The owner hires an architect to draft plans for a project. The project is then put out for bid and the owner hires a general contractor for the work. The general contractor and architect do not enter into a contract with each other. If, during construction, the general contractor finds fault with the plans, it may seek Request for Information and Change Orders, to shore up the perceived problems with the plans. Ultimately, the general contractor may sue the architect to recover damages it suffered in completing the project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    A Survey of Trends and Perspectives in Construction Defect Decisions

    November 27, 2013 —
    Thomas F. Segella, Ellen H. Greiper, and Matthew S. Lerner, partners at the firm Goldberg Segalia, together with Suzin L. Raso, an associate of the firm, have prepared a wide-ranging survey of cases, in their commentary, “Emerging Trends and Changing Perspectives on Construction Defect Claims. The authors examine 11 coverage cases, representing decisions from eight states, and 15 cases of litigation, here covering 11 states. In each case, they give a one-sentence summary, a further discussion of the case, and they end with a practice note. They start with Alabama, noting that the court found that “faulty workmanship is not an occurrence,” looking at the recent case of Owners Insurance Co. v. Jim Carr Homebuilders, LLC. Here they note that under Alabama law, “there was no damage to personal property or property of others; therefore, there was no ‘occurrence.’” They also note that “the policy involved did not contain a ‘subcontractor exception.’” In Georgia, they noted, the courts concluded that “damage to insured’s completed work is an ‘occurrence.’” Here they cite a recent decision of the Georgia Supreme Court, noting that the court looked at cases from Connecticut, South Carolina, Illinois, Texas, as well as the Fourth and Tenth Circuits. Under litigation, they look at such aspects of construction defect litigation such as the application of the economic loss doctrine in Kansas and Florida, and how the courts view arbitration agreements in states including New Jersey, Louisiana, and Colorado. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction in Indian Country – What You Need To Know About Sovereign Immunity

    July 22, 2019 —
    There are many legal issues to consider when bidding on and building projects in American Indian Country. Which labor and employment laws apply? Are there contracting or hiring preferences that apply? Do the Prompt Pay Act and other state laws apply? Can I bring a lawsuit to enforce the contract and, if so, where would I file suit? This article addresses the final question, which is often the most important question when contracting with a tribal entity. Many of the construction projects in American Indian Country are with tribes or entities wholly owned or by a tribe, such as housing authorities, casinos, hospitals, schools or other economic enterprises. Like the state and federal government, tribes (and their tribally—owned enterprises) enjoy sovereign immunity from any lawsuit, meaning they cannot be sued unless the tribe expressly agrees to waive its sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity poses a unique issue for contractors that does not typically arise in other projects, but it need not be a deterrent to doing business with tribes. It is usually in the best interest of both the contractor and tribe to negotiate an acceptable waiver of sovereign immunity. Absent such a waiver, the tribe or tribal entity cannot be sued and the resulting forfeiture of remedies can be devastating for the contractor. To waive sovereign immunity, the tribe must make it clear in the contract that it can be sued in a specific jurisdiction. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 509 (1991). It does not matter whether the tribe is operating on or off its lands—if there is no express contractual waiver of sovereign immunity, a contractor will have no recourse in the event of non-payment or other breach of contract. See Kiowa tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Edward J. Hermes, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Hermes may be contacted at ehermes@swlaw.com

    Equal Access to Justice Act Fee Request Rejected in Flood Case

    January 06, 2020 —
    The insured's claim for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) for seeking coverage under a flood policy was rejected. Hampson v. Wright Nat'l Flood Ins. Co., No. 4:19-cv-10083-KMM (S.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2019)(Order on Motion to Dismiss). The order is here. The insurer did not compensate plaintiff for flood-related damages under the terms of a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP). The insurer was a Write-Your-Own (WYO) Program insurance carrier participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). By statute, a WYO carrier acts as a "fiscal agent" and "fiduciary" of the United States. The insured's property suffered damage from a hurricane. The insured sued the carrier for breach of contract and attorney's fees under EAJA. The insurer moved to dismiss the claim for fees under EAJA. A party could recover fees and costs under the EAJA as the prevailing party in a case "brought by or against the United States . . . unless the court finds the position of the United States was substantially justified." 28 U.S.C. 2412 (d) (1) (A), (b). The statute defined the "United States" to include "any agency and any official of the United States acting in his or her official capacity." However, attorney's fees were not recoverable under the EAJA in cases for breach of an SFIP brought against a WYO program insurance carrier participating in the NFIP because WYO carriers were not considered "agencies" under the EAJA. 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

    17 Snell & Wilmer Attorneys Ranked In The 2019 Legal Elite Edition Of Nevada Business Magazine

    July 01, 2019 —
    Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that 17 of its attorneys in the Nevada offices have been ranked in Nevada Business Magazine’s 2019 Legal Elite edition, an annual list that highlights Nevada’s top attorneys as chosen by their peers. This year marks Legal Elite’s 12th year of presenting the Silver State’s top attorneys. Polling for Legal Elite 2019 began at the end of February and nearly 5,000 nominations were submitted by licensed attorneys in Nevada, according to Nevada Business Magazine. Each submission then went through an extensive verification process resulting in the top attorneys in the state, chosen by their peers. The Legal Elite list includes only the top 3 percent of attorneys in the state broken down by location. In addition, Legal Elite includes special lists ranking Nevada’s best “Up and Coming” and best government attorneys. Each nominee went through several levels of verification and scrutiny before being approved to appear on this list. Upon the nomination process closing, each ballot was individually reviewed for eligibility and every voting attorney was verified with the State Bar of Nevada. More information on the scoring can be viewed here. The following Snell & Wilmer attorneys have been named Legal Elite for 2019: The following Snell & Wilmer attorneys have been named Best Up and Coming for 2019: Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/16/24) – Algorithms Affect the Rental Market, Robots Aim to Lower Construction Costs, and Gen Z Struggle to Find Their Own Space

    February 12, 2024 —
    In our latest roundup, New York’s Prompt Payment Act comes into question, vacancy rates rise in commercial office space, the Biden administration applies project labor agreements on certain federal construction projects, and more! Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Kiewit Selected for Rebuild of Collapsed Baltimore Bridge

    September 02, 2024 —
    Kiewit Infrastructure Co. has been tapped to rebuild Baltimore’s I-695/Francis Scott Key Bridge under a progressive design-build procurement announced Aug. 29 by the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA). Work on the expected four-year reconstruction effort is scheduled to begin next year. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    August 24, 2020 —
    On August 6, 2020, in Rose’s 1 LLC, et al. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Civ. Case No. 2020 CA 002424 B, a District of Columbia trial court found in favor of an insurer on cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether COVID-19 closure orders constitute a “direct physical loss” under a commercial property policy. At its core, the decision ignores key arguments raised in the summary judgment briefing and is narrowly premised on certain dictionary definitions of the terms, “direct,” “physical,” and “loss.” Relying almost entirely on those definitions – each supplied by the insureds in their opening brief – the court set the stage for its ultimate conclusion by finding “direct” to mean “without intervening persons, conditions, or agencies; immediate”; and “physical” to mean “of or pertaining to matter ….” The court then apparently accepted the policy’s circular definition of “loss” as meaning “direct and accidental loss of or damage to covered property.” Importantly, however, despite recognizing the fundamental rule of insurance policy construction that the court “must interpret the contract ‘as a whole, giving reasonable, lawful, and effective meaning to all its terms, and ascertaining the meaning in light of all the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made,’” the court apparently ignored the insureds’ argument that the term “property damage” is specifically defined in the policy to include “loss of use” without any specific reference to physical or tangible damage. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of