BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction 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


    General Contractors Can Be Sued by a Subcontractor’s Injured Employee

    Hyundai to Pay 47M to Settle Construction Equipment's Alleged Clean Air Violations

    Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Applied to Pass-Through Agreements

    Key Takeaways For Employers in the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Halt to OSHA’s Vax/Testing Mandate

    Excess Carrier's Declaratory Judgment Action Stayed While Underlying Case Still Pending

    Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform: HB 17-1279 Approved by Colorado Legislature; Governor’s Approval Imminent

    Supreme Court of Wisconsin Applies Pro Rata Allocation Based on Policy Limits to Co-Insurance Dispute

    Five Issues to Consider in Government Contracting (Or Any Contracting!)

    ASCE Statement on Calls to Suspend the Federal Gas Tax

    Beth Cook Expands Insurance Litigation Team at Payne & Fears

    What You Need to Know About the Recently Enacted Infrastructure Bill

    Guilty Pleas Draw Renewed Interest In Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws

    South Carolina Court of Appeals Diverges from Damico Opinion, Sending Recent Construction Defects Cases to Arbitration

    Australians Back U.S. Renewables While Opportunities at Home Ebb

    DIR Reminds Public Works Contractors to Renew Registrations Before January 1, 2016 to Avoid Hefty Penalty

    Insurer's Judgment on the Pleadings Based Upon Expected Injury Exclusion Reversed

    Insureds' Summary Judgment Motion on Mold Limitation Denied

    Professional Liability Client Alert: Law Firms Should Consider Hiring Outside Counsel Before Suing Clients For Unpaid Fees

    A “Flood” of Uncertainty; Massachusetts SJC Finds Policy Term Ambiguous

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Three Recent Cases Strike Down Liquidated Damages Clauses In Settlement Agreements…A Trend Or An Aberration?

    To Ease Housing Crunch, Theme Parks Are Becoming Homebuilders

    Pinnacle Controls in Verano

    New York Court Discusses Evidentiary Standards for Policy Rescission Based on Material Misrepresentation

    Indictments Issued in Las Vegas HOA Scam

    Just Because You Caused it, Doesn’t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine

    No Coverage For Wind And Flood Damage Suffered From Superstorm Sandy

    Homeowner Who Wins Case Against Swimming Pool Contractor Gets a Splash of Cold Water When it Comes to Attorneys’ Fees

    Mississippi exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    Suppliers of Inherently Dangerous Raw Materials Remain Excluded from the Protections of the Component Parts Doctrine

    Congress to be Discussing Housing

    Eleventh Circuit Finds Professional Services Exclusion Applies to Construction Management Activities

    Withdrawal Liability? Read your CBA

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

    Can You Really Be Liable For a Product You Didn’t Make? In New Jersey, the Answer is Yes

    Contractor’s Burden When It Comes to Delay

    Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

    Release Language Extended To Successor Entity But Only Covered “Known” Claims

    Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolution Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

    TV Kitchen Remodelers Sued for Shoddy Work

    Payment Bond Surety Entitled to Award of Attorneys’ Fees Although Defended by Principal

    Insurer's Attempt to Strike Experts in Collapse Case Fails

    COVID-19 Pandemic Preference Amendments to Bankruptcy Code Benefiting Vendors, Customers, Commercial Landlords and Tenants

    Can Businesses Resolve Construction Disputes Outside of Court?

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- A Wrap Up

    Adjuster's Report No Substitute for Proof of Loss Under Flood Policy

    Illinois Insureds are Contesting One Carrier's Universal Denial to Covid-19 Losses

    Hunton Insurance Head Interviewed Concerning the Benefits and Hidden Dangers of Cyber Insurance

    Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

    Conversations with My Younger Self: 5 Things I Wish I Knew Then
    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. Drawing 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

    Failure to Comply with Contract Leaves No Additional Insured Coverage

    January 07, 2015 —
    Indemnity obligations and additional insured coverage were at issue in Strauss Painting, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 3347 (N.Y. Nov. 24, 2014). Strauss Painting, Inc. (Strauss) contracted with the Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc. (the Met) to strip and repaint the rooftop steel carriage track for the opera house's automated window-washing equipment. The contract provided that Strauss would indemnify and hold the Met harmless. Exhibit D to the contract set forth three types of insurance that Strauss was to procure: (1) workers' compensation; (2) owners and contractors protective liability (OCP); and (3) comprehensive general liability. The OCP policy was to add the Met as an additional insured. Strauss failed to obtain the OCP policy. At the time it contracted with the Met, Strauss had a CGL policy issued by Mt. Hawley. The policy's additional insured endorsement (ICO form CG 20 33 07 04) stated that "an insured" included "any organization for whom Strauss is performing operations when Strauss and such organization have agreed in writing that such organization be added as an additional insured." 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

    Construction Contract Basics: No Damages for Delay

    May 06, 2024 —
    After WAY too long a hiatus, I am back with another in my series of “Construction Contract Basics” posts. In past posts, I’ve covered venue provisions, attorney fee provisions, and indemnity clauses. In this post, I’ll share a few thoughts (or “musings”) on the topic of so-called “no damages for delay” clauses. These clauses essentially state that a subcontractor’s only remedy for a delay caused by any factor beyond its control (including the fault of the general contractor), after proper notice to the owner or general contractor, is an extension of time to complete the work. These types of clauses generally make it impossible for a subcontractor (if found in a Subcontract) or Contractor (if found in a Prime Contract) that is delayed through no fault of its own to recover any damages relating to the expenses that are inevitably caused by such delays. Such expenses/damages could include additional supervisory time (including more high-dollar superintendent payments), acceleration costs, demobilization/mobilization costs, and other related expenses. These can add up to real money. Couple that with the inevitable liquidated damages or delay damages that will occur should a contractor or subcontractor cause any delay, and this becomes a very one-sided proposition. 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

    Supreme Court Holds Arbitrator can Fully Decide Threshold Arbitrability Issue

    March 18, 2019 —
    The United States Supreme Court recently decided parties to a contract can agree, under the Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitrator, rather than a court, can fully resolve the initial arbitrability question. Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc., 2019 WL 122164 (2019). The arbitrability question is whether the dispute itself is subject to arbitration under an arbitration provision. Parties that do not want to arbitrate try to circumvent this process by filing a lawsuit and asking the court to determine the threshold arbitrability question. In Henry Schein, Inc., the contract at-issue provided: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina. Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief and disputes related to trademarks, trade secrets, or other intellectual property) shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association. The place of arbitration shall be in Charlotte, North Carolina. The plaintiff in this case asserted a claim for injunctive relief (among other claims) and argued that, therefore, the dispute is not subject to arbitration based on the exception in the provision. The initial, threshold issue became whether the dispute was subject to arbitration and, importantly, who decides this issue. The Court further looked at whether a trial court can resolve this issue under the “wholly groundless” exception, i.e.,the court can decide the issue if the argument for arbitration is wholly groundless. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Mechanic’s Liens- Big Exception

    January 22, 2024 —
    Musings has discussed mechanic’s liens on numerous occasions. As we discussed in earlier posts, the general rule is that a mechanic’s lien jumps to the head of the line of liens when filed. This is true in most instances. In the typical case, a contractor puts up a building and, when the owner refuses payment, it files a mechanic’s lien that takes priority over all other liens on that property, including the construction loan deed of trust (or mortgage, depending on your state’s property laws). 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

    Pennsylvania: When Should Pennsylvania’s New Strict Products Liability Law Apply?

    February 05, 2015 —
    Pennsylvania has maintained its own peculiar brand of strict products liability law ever since the Supreme Court decided Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.[1] in 1978. Maligned by many as “absurd and unworkable,”[2] if “excessively” orientated towards plaintiffs,[3] Azzarello’s unique approach to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965)[4] has recently been judicially consigned to the dustbin of history. In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.,[5] decided on November 19, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court expressly overruled Azzarello leaving in its place a new alternative standards approach to proving a Section 402A claim. An injured worker or subrogated insurer[6] must still prove that the seller, whether a manufacturer or a distributor, placed the product on the market in a “defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer.”[7] But now, under Tincher, a plaintiff must use either a “consumer expectation test” or a “risk-utility test” to establish that criterion.[8] Reprinted courtesy of Robert Caplan, White and Williams LLP and Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Living With a Millennial. Or Grandma.

    July 23, 2014 —
    It turns out millennials really do live in their parents’ houses -- at least according to a Pew Research Center report out today. Almost 57 million people in the U.S. -- 18.1 percent of the population -- lived in a multigenerational household in 2012, including almost one in four 25- to 34-year-olds. This provides needed context to the "millennials living in the basement" phenomenon, and, well, stereotype. Of course, "multigenerational household" is not synonymous with "millennial living in the basement." Pew's definition of the former term is more expansive than the one used by the U.S. Census Bureau (whose data Pew analyzes in the report). There's more detail in the report, but here’s the Sparknotes version: A multi-generational household is a household that includes at least two adult generations (for example, parents and adult children ages 25 or older where either generation can be the household head) or two non-sequential generations (for example, grandparents and grandchildren of any age). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Zara Kessler, Bloomberg
    Ms. Kessler may be contacted at zkessler@bloomberg.net

    Thousands of London Residents Evacuated due to Fire Hazards

    June 29, 2017 —
    Nearly 4,000 residents were ordered by municipal authorities to “urgently evacuate apartments in five London high-rise buildings…after fire inspectors warned that the safety of the residents could not be guaranteed,” reported the New York Times. Displaced families were urged to find shelter with family or friends, but temporary accommodations were offered. Repairs may take up to four weeks. The five London towers that were evacuated all contain the same exterior cladding and insulation that is similar to what was used in Grenfell Tower, where 79 people died in fire only the preceding week, according to the New York Times. Camden Council stated that the cladding material would be removed. They had ordered noncombustible cladding, but later learned that combustible cladding had been installed. “Preliminary tests on the insulation samples from Grenfell Tower show that they combusted soon after the test started,” Detective Superintendent McCormack said in a televised statement, as quoted by the New York Times. “Cladding tiles had also failed initial tests,” she continued. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Chicago Debt Document Says $8.5B O'Hare Revamp May Be Delayed

    October 26, 2020 —
    The $8.5-billion revamp of O'Hare International Airport may have to be delayed because of COVID-19 related economic impacts, according to documents included in paperwork to refinance existing airport debt. The city forcefully disagreed with that summation, however, and says the project will move forward and is not endangered. Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of