BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction experts
    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


    Colorado Homebuyers Must be in Privity of Contract with Developer to Assert Breach of Implied Warranty of Suitability

    Florida Construction Defect Decision Part of Lengthy Evolution

    Unesco Denies Claim It Cleared Construction of Zambezi Dam

    Legal Matters Escalate in Aspen Condo Case

    Mediating is Eye Opening

    Harmon Tower Case Settled Prior to Start of Trial

    Intricacies of Business Interruption Claim Considered

    Pennsylvania Modernizes State Building Code

    OSHA’s New Severe Injury and Fatality Reporting Requirements, Are You Ready?

    Latin America’s Biggest Corporate Crime Gets a Worthy Epic

    Beyond the Statute: How the Colorado Court Upheld Modified Accrual in Construction Contracts

    With Trump's Tariff Talk, Time to Negotiate for Escalation Clauses in Construction Contracts

    Statutes of Limitations May be the Colorado Contractors’ Friend

    Study May Come Too Late for Construction Defect Bill

    New Joint Venture to Develop a New Community in Orange County, California

    Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Case Involving a Wedding Guest Injured in a Fall

    New York Philharmonic Will Open Geffen Hall Two Years Ahead of Schedule

    Haight Celebrates 2024 New Partner Promotions!

    School Board Settles Construction Defect Suit

    Angels Among Us

    Extreme Rainfall Is Becoming More Frequent and Deadly

    Recent Third Circuit OSHA Decision Sounds Alarm for Employers and Their Officers

    Condo Developers Buy in Washington despite Construction Defect Litigation

    When an Insurer Proceeds as Subrogee, Defendants Should Not Assert Counterclaims Against the Insured/Subrogor

    Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal Suggests Negligent Repairs to Real Property Are Not Subject to the Statute of Repose

    School District Practice Bulletin: Loose Lips Can Sink More Than Ships

    Keller Group Fires Two Executives in Suspected Australia Profits Reporting Fraud

    Despite Construction Gains, Cement Maker Sees Loss

    Illinois Lawmakers Approve Carpenters Union's Legislation to Help Ensure Workers Are Paid What They're Owed

    HHMR Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers

    Recommencing Construction on a Project due to a Cessation or Abandonment

    Disappearing Data: Avoid Losing Electronic Information to Avoid Losing the Case

    California Case Adds Difficulties for Contractors & Material Suppliers

    Congratulations to Las Vegas Team on Their Successful Motion for Summary Judgment!

    Forensic Team Finds Fault with Concrete Slabs in Oroville Dam Failure

    The Treasures Inside Notre Dame Cathedral

    My Top 5 Innovations for Greater Efficiency, Sustainability & Quality

    Tightest Credit Market in 16 Years Rejects Bernanke’s Bid

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa Rolle and Christopher Acosta Win Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

    Haight Expands California Reach – Opens Office in Sacramento

    Lead Paint: The EPA’s Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule

    SIG Earnings Advance 21% as U.K. Construction Strengthens

    Georgia Supreme Court Rules Construction Defects Can Constitute an Occurrence in CGL Policies

    Kushner Cos. Probed Over Harassment of Low-Income Tenants

    Sacramento’s Commercial Construction Market Heats Up

    Blindly Relying on Public Adjuster or Loss Consultant’s False Estimate Can Play Out Badly

    Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses

    Tenants Who Negligently Cause Fires in Florida Beware: You May Be Liable to the Landlord’s Insurer

    The Importance of a Notice of Completion to Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers

    When Can Customers Sue for Delays?
    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

    #2 CDJ Topic: Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools

    December 30, 2015 —
    In July of this year, Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP analyzed the results of the Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools case, in which “a California appeals court held that equities favor an insurer seeking equitable subrogation over a subcontractor that agreed to defend and indemnify claims arising out of its performance of work under the subcontract.” Read the full story... In the article, “General Liability Insurer Entitled to Subrogate Against its Insured’s Indemnitor,” Matthew S. Foy and Michael A. Pursell of Gordon & Rees LLP also discussed the details of the Valley Crest v. Mission Pools case that involved installing a swimming pool on a St. Regis hotel property: “In Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that an insurer was entitled to equitably subrogate a breach of express indemnity claim against its insured’s indemnitor.” Read the full story... This month, Graham C. Mills of Newmeyer & Dillion reported on the decision by the Court of Appeals regarding the Valley Crest case, which “reinforces the right of a general contractor to defense and indemnity by a subcontractor when the parties have contractually allocated risk to the subcontractor. To ensure compliance with that right, the Valley Crest court imposed a strong penalty against a subcontractor that defaulted on its obligation.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ninth Circuit Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment to Insurer For Fortuitous Loss

    July 01, 2019 —
    The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's issuance of summary judgment regarding coverage for damages when the insured's plant had to be shut down due to an accident. Ingenco Holdings, LLC v. Ace American Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10946 (9th Cir. April 15, 2019). Ingenco operated a gas purification plant which converted raw landfill gas into usable natural gas. The final step in the purification process involved the removal of excess nitrogen from the landfill gas. The gas was directed through adsorbent beads, to which nitrogen adhered, contained within pressure vessels.The beads could not withstand the direct pressure of the landfill gas inflow. which, if untreated, could grind the beads down into dust. To reduce the force of the gas flow on the beads, a "diffuser basket" was suspended from the top of each bead-filled pressure vessel. The diffuser basket acted as a shield that prevented the full force of the incoming landfill gas from striking the beads directly. In 2010, metal brackets securing a diffiuser basket broke. This resulted in damage to other components and an eventual shutdown of the entire facility. The plant remained idle for several months as Ingenco investigated alternative nitrogen filtration options and undertook repairs. 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

    Duty to Defend Requires Payments Under Policy's Supplemental Payments Provision

    February 16, 2017 —
    The California Court of Appeal determined there was no duty to indemnify and the insured had to reimburse the insurer's contribution to a settlement. Nevertheless, there was a duty to defend, meaning the insured did not have to reimburse amounts it was entitled to under the supplemental payments provision. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Constr., 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 1132 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2016). Moorefield was the general contractor for a shopping center project to be developed by DBO Development No. 28 (DBO). The project included the construction of a 30,055-square-foot building to by used as a Best Buy store. In January 2002, DBO entered a 15-year lease with Best Buy. 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

    Let it Shine: California Mandates Rooftop Solar for New Residential Construction

    May 16, 2018 —
    California. Birthplace of the Frisbee, skateboard, television, canned tuna and (yup) fortune cookies has added another first to the list: California has become the first state in the nation to mandate the use of solar panels for new residential construction. On May 9, 2018, the California Energy Commission (CEC) unanimously approved the state’s 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2019 Energy Efficiency Standards update the California Building Standards Codes found at Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations which are updated every three years. The 2019 Energy Efficiency Standards go into effect on January 1, 2020. 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

    Understand and Define Key Substantive Contract Provisions

    March 23, 2020 —
    The following contract provisions should be clearly understood before undertaking any construction project commences. Force Majeure Often referred to as an “Act of God,” a force majeure is an event, typically beyond the parties’ control, that prevents performance under a contract. To determine if a contractor need a force majeure clause in its contract, it should ask whether there may be instances where events beyond the contractor’s control could impact its contractual performance? If so, it will want this clause. Courts currently treat force majeure as an issue of contractual interpretation, focusing on the express language in the contract. Consequently, the scope and applicability of a force majeure clause depends on the contract’s terms. Using broad language in a force majeure clause may help protect against unforeseen events. But to the extent possible, parties should describe with particularity the circumstances intended to constitute a force majeure. The law relating to force majeure also fairly consistently provides that parties cannot avoid contractual obligations because performance has become economically burdensome. Courts have refused to apply force majeure clauses where an event only affects profitability. Recent attempts to categorize tariffs on construction materials as a force majeure have failed. Unless a tariff or tax is specifically listed as a force majeure event, it is unlikely to constitute a force majeure because it only affects profitability. Reprinted courtesy of Phillip L. Sampson Jr. & Richard F. Whiteley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Mediation in the Zero Sum World of Construction

    September 26, 2022 —
    Construction is a zero sum game. What do I mean by that? I mean that even where you, a construction professional with a great construction lawyer, have reviewed and edited a subcontract presented to you or provided a well-drafted contract to the other party that contains an attorney fees provision, every dollar that you spend on litigation is a dollar less of profit. Couple the fact that no construction company can or should bid or negotiate work with an eye toward litigation (aside from having a well written contract that will be enforced to the letter here in Virginia). Particularly on “low bid” type projects, contractors and subcontractors cannot “pad” their bids to take into account the possibility of attorney fees, arbitration, or litigation. Furthermore, the loss of productivity when your “back office” personnel are tied up dealing with discovery, phone calls, and other incidents of litigation that do nothing but rehash a bad project and increase the expense sap money from the bottom line. While the possibility of a judgment including attorney fees may soften this blow, you are still out the cash. All of this said, if you are in commercial construction for any significant period of time disputes will arise and I have discussed the process in some detail at other places here at Construction Law Musings. As a construction litigator, I am fully aware of this fact of life. Efficient management of these disputes is key, particularly when they escalate to the point where some form of outside “help” (read arbitrator or judge) is necessary. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Patrick Haggerty Promoted to Counsel

    May 24, 2021 —
    White and Williams is pleased to announce the promotion of Patrick Haggerty to the position of Counsel. Pat is a member of the Real Estate and Finance groups and practices in the Philadelphia office. Pat focuses his practice on a wide range of commercial real estate transactions and financings. He represents real estate developers, owners, and investors, international and domestic banks, private equity firms, hedge funds, and insurance companies in the financing, acquisition, development, repositioning and disposition of commercial real estate assets. “Pat’s unique skillset and impressive experience enhances the services which we can provide to our real estate and finance clients. We are proud to promote such a talented lawyer,” said Tim Davis, Chair of the Business Department. “We look forward to his continued success.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Haggerty, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Haggerty may be contacted at haggertyp@whiteandwilliams.com

    Don’t Spoil Me: Oklahoma District Court Rules Against Spoliation Sanctions

    January 08, 2024 —
    In Okla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Omega Flex, Inc., No. CIV-22-18-D, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197755, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (the District Court) determined spoliation sanctions were not warranted after a home was demolished for repair following a joint scene examination. The insurer, Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer) provided a policy of insurance to Michael and Sondra Diel (the Diels). On July 11, 2020, the Diels’ home was struck by lightning and their attic caught fire. Following the loss, Insurer retained both counsel and fire origin and cause experts to inspect the Diels’ property. Insurer’s counsel informed in-house counsel for Omega Flex, Inc. (Omega Flex) via a letter dated July 14, 2020, that a preliminary investigation indicated the fire may have been caused by an Omega Flex product—specifically, TracPipe Corrugated Stainless Steel Tubing (CSST). Insurer’s counsel invited Omega Flex to inspect the property, noting: “It is anticipated that the loss will exceed $300,000” and stating that any inspection “must be completed during the next two weeks. At that time, the homeowner will proceed with demolition to rebuild.” (Emphasis added). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
    Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com