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


    Builder’s Risk Coverage—Construction Defects

    Can a Non-Union Company Be Compelled to Arbitrate?

    U.S. Stocks Fall as Small Shares Tumble Amid Home Sales

    Why 8 Out of 9 Californians Don't Buy Earthquake Insurance

    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

    Lewis Brisbois Ranks 11th in Law360’s Glass Ceiling Report on Gender Parity in Law Firms

    A Riveting (or at Least Insightful) Explanation of the Privette Doctrine

    No Rest for the Weary: Project Completion Is the Beginning of Litigation

    Claims Made Insurance Policies

    Hudson River PCB Cleanup Lands Back in Court

    Ninth Circuit Upholds Corps’ Issuance of CWA Section 404 Permit for Newhall Ranch Project Near Santa Clarita, CA

    2019 Legislative Session

    Is a Violation of a COVID-19 Order the Basis For Civil Liability?

    Construction Warranties: Have You Seen Me Lately?

    Nevada Legislature Burns Insurers' Rights to Offer Eroding Limits

    No One to Go After for Construction Defects at Animal Shelter

    Claim for Consequential Damages Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Think Twice About Depreciating Repair Costs in Our State, says the Tennessee Supreme Court

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

    Coverage Issues: When You Need Your Own Lawyer in a Construction Defect Suit

    Brooklyn’s Hipster Economy Challenges Manhattan Supremacy

    After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

    Construction Professionals Could Face More Liability Exposure Following California Appellate Ruling

    Withdrawal Liability? Read your CBA

    A DC Office Building Offers a Lesson in Glass and Sculpture

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at Faster Pace in January

    Appellate Division Confirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owners in Action Alleging Labor Law Violations

    Second Circuit Court Differentiates the Standard for Determining Evident Partiality for a Neutral Arbitrator and a Party-Appointed Arbitrator

    The Cheapest Place to Buy a House in the Hamptons

    Five Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Named “Top Rank Attorneys” by Nevada Business Magazine

    Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.

    New Hampshire’s Statute of Repose for Improvements to Real Property Does Not Apply to Product Manufacturers

    Engineer TRC Fends Off Lawsuits After Merger

    Jury's Verdict for Loss Caused by Collapse Overturned

    Deck Police - The New Mandate for HOA's Takes Safety to the Next Level

    Burg Simpson to Create Construction Defect Group

    Excess Policy Triggered Once Retention Paid, Even if Loss Not Covered By Excess

    Falling Crime Rates Make Dangerous Neighborhoods Safe for Bidding Wars

    New York Appeals Court Rekindles the Spark

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” and Tier 2 for Orange County by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2023

    The Law of Patent v Latent Defects

    Court of Appeal Holds That Higher-Tiered Party on Construction Project Can be Held Liable for Intentional Interference with Contract

    The Murky Waters Between "Good Faith" and "Bad Faith"

    Use It or Lose It: California Court of Appeal Addresses Statutes of Limitations for Latent Construction Defects and Damage to Real Property

    Architectural Firm Disputes Claim of Fault

    Home Buyer Disclosures, What’s Required and What Isn’t

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    A Court-Side Seat: Flint Failures, Missed Deadlines, Toad Work and a Game of Chicken

    School Board Settles Construction Defect Suit

    COVID-19 Business Interruption Lawsuits Begin: Iconic Oceana Grill in New Orleans Files Insurance Coverage Lawsuit
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Challenging a Termination for Default

    September 23, 2024 —
    No contractor wants to be terminated for default. It is the harshest contractual recourse. It is a recourse that has implications, particularly in the public sector. However, a party needs to be in a position to support the basis of the termination for default, and the terminated party, in most instances, should not be in a position to imply accept the basis of the default. This applies regardless of the project. In the federal context: “When a contractor challenges a default termination, the government bears the burden of establishing the validity of the termination.” Sergent’s Mechanical Systems, Inc. v. U.S., 2024 WL 4048175, *7 (Fed.Cl. 2024) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Once the government establishes the default, “the contractor bears the burden of establishing that the default was excused by fault of the government.” Id. at *8 (internal quotation and citation omitted). Relevant considerations as to whether the contractor is in default include the contractor’s failure to meet contract specifications or the required schedule. Sergent’s Mechanical Systems, supra, at *8. “[T]here is ‘a requirement that the contractor give reasonable assurances of performance in response to a validly issued cure notice.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). 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

    Business Interruption, Food Spoilage Claims Resulting from Off Premise Power Failure Denied

    June 02, 2016 —
    The insurer denied the insured restaurant's claim for food spoilage and loss of business income when a flood elsewhere caused a power outage. N. Spy Food Co., LLC v. Tower Nat'l. Ins., 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1033 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. March 22, 2016). Tower denied the claim based on an investigation which revealed that the claims resulted from an off premises power failure. The utility company verified that the cause of the power failure was due to flood, a cause excluded under the policy. The food loss and business interruption, therefore, did not result from direct physical loss or damage by a covered cause, justifying the denial of the claim. 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

    Colorado homebuilders target low-income buyers with bogus "affordable housing" bill

    March 05, 2015 —
    “Affordable housing” is the latest catchphrase for Colorado homebuilders seeking immunity from warranty claims and repair requests. In 2013, the homebuilders’ lobby said it was about public transportation. In 2014 they said it was about community building. Now it’s 2015, and the lobbyists are claiming that a lack of affordable housing is the reason why politicians should eliminate consumer protections for homebuyers. The Colorado Senate recently announced the introduction of SB 15-177. If passed, the bill will make it illegal for homeowner associations to hire construction experts or lawyers unless they can first satisfy a complicated disclosure and voting process. Although sponsors portray the bill as an innocuous measure that merely requires more community involvement, its provisions have actually been tailored to take advantage of recent court decisions that make it difficult for homeowner associations to vote on measures outside of a meeting or act quickly to resolve construction defect disputes. The intent is to make it nearly impossible for homeowners to retain construction experts or legal representation before the statute of limitations period expires, thereby making homebuilders immune from any potential claims. The bill will also eliminate the right to a jury trial in many cases, forcing any disputes that overcome the procedural hurdles into costly, private arbitration proceedings. The sponsors argue that these measures are necessary to encourage builders to erect more cheap condominiums. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law Firm
    Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.acerbicwitt.com

    APROPLAN and GenieBelt Merge, Creating “LetsBuild” – the Build Phase End-to-End Digital Platform

    March 18, 2019 —
    Responding to a rising need to deliver an all-in-one solution, supporting on-site planning, progress communication, snagging, drawings and checklists, GenieBelt and APROPLAN have decided to merge to form LetsBuild – the European leader in delivering an end-to-end solution to the global construction industry. For the past five years, GenieBelt CEO Klaus Nyengaard and APROPLAN CEO Thomas Goubau have met on a regular basis to discuss developments in the construction technology sector and how to increase efficiency and minimise rework, miscommunication, and errors. “We share the vision that ‘simple to use’-products will bring immense value to the construction sector. When we met in October 2018, we concluded that the way to realize this vision was to unite our companies to create a broader product and cover more needs in the market,” says LetsBuild CEO Klaus Nyengaard. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Illinois Appellate Court Address the Scope of the Term “Resident” in Homeowners Policy

    April 11, 2022 —
    In Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Cheekati, 2022 IL App (4th) 210023, the 4th District Court of Appeals for the State of Illinois addressed whether the term “resident” in a homeowners policy included a tenant leasing the insured premises. The Insureds owned property which was insured through Farmers under a homeowner’s policy. Unable to sell the property, the Insureds entered into a two-year lease agreement with a tenant. Several months after entering into the lease agreement, the tenant allegedly sustained physical injuries inside of the rented premises when a staircase collapsed. The tenant sued the Insureds and the matter was tendered to Farmers. Thereafter, Farmers denied coverage based on an exclusionary provision in the homeowner’s policy. Specifically, the policy contained a "Liability Exclusions" section, which provided:
    "Coverage E (Personal Liability) *** and personal injury coverage, if covered under this policy, do not apply to: Any insured or other residents of the residence premises. We do not cover bodily injury or personal injury to: (a) any insured; or (b) any resident of the residence premises, whether resident in the dwelling or a separate structure." (Emphases in original.)
    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

    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Components of an Effective Provision

    December 02, 2015 —
    Tort law is aimed at providing compensation to the victims of negligence. Tort law encourages plaintiffs to cast a wide net, pursuing claims or suits against not only those whose fault seems manifestly primary, but also against defendants whose causal exposure is minimal, against those whose exposure is purely by operation of law. As discussed in the first installment of this series, "Maximizing Contractual Indemnity: Problems with Common Law," three common law principles – vicarious liability, joint and several liability, and common law indemnity – cause some parties to pay in excess of their actual degree of causal fault. Contractual indemnity can remedy that harsh result. Part Two: Components of an Effective Provision Properly composed, “broad form” contractual indemnity provisions permit an Indemnitee to shift the full range of financial consequences from tort exposure, including civil damages, defense fees, expert fees, and litigation expenses. Such contracts permit indemnity even where the underlying damage was incurred due to a degree of negligence or fault on the part of the Indemnitee. Such contracts can also allow an Indemnitee to shift to the Indemnitor the risk of loss for someone from whom the Indemnitor would otherwise be immune from suit (e.g., the Indemnitor’s employees). A well-written contract can even convert an entity which is an Indemnitor as to one party (e.g., a general contractor which has to indemnify a property owner) into an Indemnitee as to another party (e.g., a subcontractor) for the very same risk. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William Kennedy, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Kennedy may be contacted at kennedyw@whiteandwilliams.com

    COVID-19 Response: Executive Order 13999: Enhancement of COVID-19-Related Workplace Safety Requirements

    March 08, 2021 —
    President Biden has signed 28 Executive Orders as of February 2, 2021. While this is a large number of Executive Orders compared to the historical record, most call for creating task forces and directing agencies to explore policy changes. However, there is one that stands out to employment lawyers – Executive Order 13999 (Order). Titled “Protecting Worker Health and Safety,” the Order addresses workplace safety. It sets out instructions, primarily to the Secretary of Labor and Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, for establishing and issuing a set of guidelines under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). Pursuant to the Order, the Secretary of Labor will issue revised guidance to employers on workplace safety concerning COVID-19, determine if emergency workplace standards are required, and improve overall OSHA shortcomings related to COVID-19 workplace protections and enforcement. Enforcement will include the use of anti-retaliation principles concerning employees reporting unsafe conditions in the workplace. OSHA has issued initial guidance based on the Order. Reprinted courtesy of Alan Rupe, Lewis Brisbois and Luis Mendoza, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Rupe may be contacted at Alan.Rupe@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Mendoza may be contacted at Luis.Mendoza@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Clean Water Act Cases: Of Irrigation and Navigability

    January 06, 2020 —
    The federal courts have recently decided two significant Clean Water Act (CWA) cases: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler, where the US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia held that the 2015 rulemaking proceeding of EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers redefining the term “Waters of the United States” in the CWA violated the Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act; and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, et al. v. Glaser, where the appeals court ruled that the lower court erroneously interpreted a CWA NPDES permitting exception involving agricultural return flows. An Absence of Navigability: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler Decided on August 21, 2019, the district court, one of the few courts to grapple with the rule’s compliance with the CWA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), held that the agencies’ redefinition of the terms “Interstate Waters,” “Tributaries” and “Adjacent Waters” violated the CWA by reading “navigability” out of the new definitions, or by failing to adhere to the Supreme Court’s rulings in the 2005 case of Rapanos v. United States, in particular Justice Kennedy’s concurrence regarding the application of the “significant nexus” in case-by-case adjudications as to whether a particular body of water was covered by the Act. Moreover, some provisions of the rule conflicted with the APA because they were not a logical outgrowth of the rules proposed by the agencies in 2014, and on which they solicited comments, and other determinations were not supported by a reasonable explanation. In addition, without a clear statement from Congress that it supported the rule’s effect of increasing the nature and extent of enhanced federal jurisdiction over waters subject to the CWA, the court was loathe to approve the rule. Accordingly, the rule was remanded to the agencies for additional review consistent with this decision. This decision is of particular importance as it may well be the first case to subject this new EPA rule—the linchpin of much of EPA’s regulation under the CWA—to extended review. (Other courts have only been asked to enjoin the rule, which involves a different type of review.) 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