BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect 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


    A Recap of the Supreme Court’s 2019 Summer Slate

    Contractual Waiver of Consequential Damages

    4 Ways the PRO Act Would Impact the Construction Industry

    General Release of Contractor Upheld Despite Knowledge of Construction Defects

    Almost Half of Homes in New York and D.C. Are Now Losing Value

    Evaluating Construction Trends From 2023 and Forecasting For 2024

    Court of Appeals Expands Application of Construction Statute of Repose

    Warning! Danger Ahead for Public Entities

    Avoid Delay or Get Ready to Pay: The Risks of “Time-Is-of-The-Essence” Clauses

    The Impact of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict on the Insurance Industry, Part One: Coverage, Exposure, and Losses

    Ohio Supreme Court Holds No Occurence Arises from Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

    Warren Renews Criticism of Private Equity’s Role in Housing

    Federal Judge Refuses to Limit Coverage and Moves Forward with Policyholder’s Claims Against Insurer and Broker

    Number of Occurrences Depends on Who is Sued

    ‘Hallelujah,’ House Finally Approves $1T Infrastructure Funding Package

    New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements

    Brazil Congress Chiefs Deny Wrongdoing in Petrobras Scandal

    What I Love and Hate About Updating My Contracts From an Owners’ Perspective

    Chambers USA 2022 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Keeping Detailed Records: The Best Defense to Constructive Eviction

    Why Are Developers Still Pouring Billions Into Waterlogged Miami?

    Canada Cooler Housing Market Boosts Poloz’s Soft Landing

    Former Hoboken, New Jersey Mayor Disbarred for Taking Bribes

    Daily Reports – The Swiss Army Knife of Project Documentation

    Appeals Court Rules that CGL Policy Doesn’t Cover Subcontractors’ Faulty Work

    Fence Attached to Building Covered Under Dwelling Provisions

    Nicholas A. Thede Joins Ball Janik LLP

    Required Contract Provisions for Construction Contracts in California

    Colorado Abandons the “Completed and Accepted Rule” in Favor of the “Foreseeability Rule” in Determining a Contractor’s Duty to a Third Party After Work Has Been Completed

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    Does the New Jersey Right-To-Repair Law Omit Too Many Construction Defects?

    Property Owner Found Liable for Injuries to Worker of Unlicensed Contractor, Again

    Catching Killer Clauses in Contract Negotiations

    Charles Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation

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

    SAFETY Act Part II: Levels of Protection

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Named 2019 Super Lawyers

    Collapse of Improperly Built Deck Not An Occurrence

    Concrete Worker Wins Lawsuit and Settles with Other Defendant

    Parking Reform Takes Off on the West Coast

    Why Biden’s Infrastructure Plan Is a Green Jobs Plan

    HHMR Celebrates 20 Years of Service!

    Show Me the Money: The Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Penalties

    President Trump Repeals Contractor “Blacklisting” Rule

    Subcontractors Eye 2022 with Guarded Optimism

    Bally's Secures Funding for $1.7B Chicago Casino and Hotel Project

    Panthers Withdraw City, County Deal Over Abandoned Facility

    Vermont Supreme Court Reverses, Finding No Coverage for Collapse

    All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage

    Construction Defects could become Issue in Governor’s Race
    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

    2017 Construction Outlook: Slow, Mature Growth, but No Decline, Expected

    December 21, 2016 —
    As we count down the remaining days of 2016 (thank God) it’s time to think about what the new year will bring (I’m good with pretty much anything at this point). The economists at Dodge Data & Analytics have a few predictions. According to their 2017 Dodge Construction Outlook, they predict that U.S. construction starts will increase modestly in 2017, up 5% to $713 billion, after rather anemic growth in 2016 following several years of steady growth. According to Robert Murray, chief economist for Dodge Data & Analytics, while the first half of 2016 lagged behind construction activity in 2015, that shortfall grew smaller as the year progressed, easing concern that the construction industry might be in the early stage of a cyclical decline. Rather, according to Murray, it appears that the construction industry has now entered a more mature phase of expansion, one characterized by slower rates of growth than during the 2012-2015 period and that construction spending can be expected to see moderate gains through 2017 and beyond[.] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Convictions Obtained in Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case

    March 19, 2015 —
    The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that a jury “convicted four defendants charged in the massive scheme to take over and defraud homeowners associations.” Convicted defendants included former Benzer attorney Keith Gregory, Benzer’s half-sister Edith Gillespie, Salvatore Ruvolo, and David Ball. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “Prosecutors contended the multimillion-dollar scheme was carried out between 2003 and 2009 by former construction company boss Leon Benzer and the late construction defects lawyer Nancy Quon. Benzer has since pleaded guilty. Quon committed suicide in 2012 under the weight of the high-profile investigation.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage for Injury To Subcontractor's Employee

    April 28, 2014 —
    The Third Circuit reversed the district court and held that the additional insured was covered for injury to the subcontractor's employee despite an employee's exclusion in the policy. ArcelorMittal Plate, LLC v. Joule Technical Serv, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2905 (3d Cir. Feb. 18, 2014). ArcelorMittal Plate, LLC (AMP) owned a steel production facility. AMP contracted with Joule, an industrial staffing and engineering firm, for regular performance of maintenance and repair work at its plant. Joule was obligated to provide a CGL policy adding AMP as an additional insured "for all claims including, but not limited to, claims by Joule's employees." Joule added AMP as an additional insured to its policy with Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. The policy had an "employee exclusion" which stated, “This insurance does not apply to bodily injury to (1) an employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of (a) employment by the insured or (b) performing duties related to the conduct of the insured's business.” 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

    Just Decided – New Jersey Supreme Court: Insurers Can Look To Extrinsic Evidence To Deny a Defense

    September 05, 2022 —
    Last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Norman International, Inc. v. Admiral Insurance Company, No. 086155 (N.J. Aug. 11, 2022). At issue was coverage for a work-site injury and the interpretation of a policy exclusion for operations or activities performed by an insured in certain counties in New York. The case is significant in terms of addressing causation for purposes of the application of exclusions. But the more wide-reaching issue has nothing to do with the scope of the exclusion. The real story from Norman is the New Jersey high court’s pronouncement that an insurer, in certain circumstances, can use extrinsic evidence to deny a defense to its insured. New Jersey duty to defend law has been a jungle land and in need of more supreme court guidance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Maniloff may be contacted at maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com

    Recent Regulatory Activity

    October 25, 2021 —
    Selected federal regulatory actions taken or proposed by several federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency: EPA Actions. On September 15, 2021, EPA’s Water Office issued a memo rescinding a January 2021 guidance document that purported to provide the regulatory community with EPA’s understanding of the Supreme Court’s Clean Water Act ruling in the case of County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund. That case involved a discharge of pollutants to groundwater which eventually made their way to the Pacific Ocean. Was an NPDES permit required to authorize this discharge, which was not initially made to a navigable body of water? The text of the Clean Water Act provided little guidance, and the matter has become very controversial. The Court held that if the discharge was the “functional equivalent” of a direct discharge, a permit may be required, and the Court described some factors that could influence a determination that there was the functional equivalent of a direct discharge. However, EPA has rescinded the January 2021 guidance, opining that EPA’s earlier analysis was inconsistent the Court’s opinion, and that the guidance was issued without proper deliberation within EPA or with its federal partners. Until new guidance is prepared, EPA will continue to apply “site-specific, science-based evaluations” to resolve these questions. On October 1, 2021, EPA released its “Climate Adaption Action Plan.” Briefly, EPA will take steps to ensure that its programs and policies consider current and future impacts of climate change and how the impacts disproportionately affect certain underserved or environmental justice communities. The agency’s air and water quality programs, contaminated sites activities and chemical safety and pollution prevention programs will be analyzed to determine their impact. Also on October 1, 2021, EPA released its draft FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan to protect health and the environment. The plan, essentially an internal directive to all offices and regions, reflects a new “foundational principle”—to advance justice and equity by taking on the climate crisis and taking decisive action to advance civil rights and environmental justice. 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

    Business Interruption Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part

    February 16, 2016 —
    The court granted portions of the business interruption claim, while denying other portions. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Infogroup, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162810 (S. D. Iowa Nov. 30, 2015). Phoenix insured Infogroup's business buildings and personal business property, including data and data processing equipment. In late May 2011, warnings were issued of possible flooding from the Missouri River. On June 1, 2011, Infogroup moved and relocated its business operations and data centers away from the river and did not intend to return to the facilities. On July 19, 2011, Phoenix advanced $500,000 to Infogroup for anticipated claims under the policy. On August 22, 2011, heavy rain left surface water in the parking lot at Infogroup's facilities. Infogroup claimed that it suffered minor property damage during July and August, 2011, including damage to an uninterruptable power source and damage to a server. 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

    Judgment for Insurer Reversed Due to Failure to Establish Depreciation

    August 01, 2023 —
    The trial court erred in placing the burden on the policyholder to establish depreciation in determining the actual cash value of the loss. SFR Serv., LLC v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co., 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 3570 (Fla. Ct. App. May 26, 2023). The insureds' roof was damaged by Hurricane Irma. They submitted their claim to their insurer, Tower Hill. The cost of repair was assessed at $7,726.94, below the amount of the deductible. Therefore, there was no recovery under the policy. The insureds assigned their claim to SFR Services, LLC, their roofing contractor. SFR submitted a claim to Tower Hill for $162,083.84. Tower Hill refused to pay and SFR sued. 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

    Settling with Some, But Not All, of the Defendants in a Construction Defect Case

    March 28, 2018 —
    Construction defect lawsuits can be complex multi-party disputes, especially when the plaintiff is doing what is necessary to maximize recovery. This means the plaintiff may sue multiple defendants associated with the defects and damage. For example, the owner (e.g., plaintiff) may sue the contractor, subcontractors, design professionals, etc. due to the magnitude of the damages. In many instances, the plaintiff is suing multiple defendants for overlapping damages. The law prohibits a plaintiff from double-recovering for the same damages prohibiting the windfall of a plaintiff recovering twice for the same damages. Perhaps this sentiment is straight common sense, but this sentiment is a very important consideration when it comes to settling with one or more of the defendants, while potentially trying the construction defect case as to remaining defendants. Analysis and strategy is involved when settling with some but not all of the defendants in a construction defect case (and, really, for any type of case). Time must be devoted to crafting specific language in the settlement agreements to deal with this issue. Otherwise, the settlement(s) could be set-off from the damage awarded against the remaining defendants. The recent decision in Addison Construction Corp. v. Vecellio, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D625(a) (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) details the analysis and strategy required when settling with some but not all of the defendants in a construction defect case, and the concern associated with a trial court setting-off the settlement amount from the damage awarded against the remaining defendants. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com