BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut building consultant expert
    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


    Recovering Unabsorbed Home Office Overhead Due to Delay

    Illinois Legislature Passes Bill Allowing Punitive Damages In Most Wrongful Death Actions

    Construction Project Bankruptcy Law

    Housing Buoyed by 20-Year High for Vet’s Loans: Mortgages

    Documenting Contract Changes in Construction

    Rent Increases During the Coronavirus Emergency Part II: Avoiding Violations Under California’s Anti-Price Gouging Statute

    An Insurance Policy Isn’t Ambiguous Just Because You Want It to Be

    Record Keeping—the Devil’s in the Details

    Construction Law Breaking News: California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Beacon Residential Community Association

    Additional Elements a Plaintiff Must Plead and Prove to Enforce Restrictive Covenant

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

    Owners and Contractors Beware: Pennsylvania (Significantly) Strengthens Contractor Payment Act

    General Contractor’s Ability to Supplement Subcontractor Per Subcontract

    Hunton Andrews Kurth Promotes Insurance Recovery Lawyer Andrea (Andi) DeField to Partner

    Insurer Must Cover Construction Defects Claims under Actual Injury Rule

    Don’t Sign a Contract that Doesn’t Address Covid-19 (Or Pandemics and Epidemics)

    Venue for Suing Public Payment Bond

    Landlords Challenge U.S. Eviction Ban and Continue to Oust Renters

    Blog Completes Fifteenth Year

    The Pitfalls of Oral Agreements in the Construction Industry

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Remands Bad Faith Claim Against Title Insurer

    Construction Defect Fund Approved for Bankrupt Las Vegas Builder

    Coronavirus and Contract Obligations

    Life After McMillin: Do Negligence and Strict Liability Causes of Action for Construction Defects Still Exist?

    Architectural Firm, Fired by School District, Launches Lawsuit

    The Project “Completion” Paradox in California

    How to Cool Down Parks in Hot Cities

    Unbilled Costs Remain in Tutor Perini's Finances

    Lake Texoma, Texas Condo Case may go to Trial

    Puerto Rico Grid Restoration Plagued by Historic Problems, New Challenges

    Contractual “Pay if Paid” and “Pay when Paid” Clauses? What is a California Construction Subcontractor to Do?

    CA Supreme Court Set to Rule on Important Occurrence Issue Certified by Ninth Circuit

    Claims for Negligence? Duty to Defend Triggered

    Whose Lease Is It Anyway: Physical Occupancy Not Required in Landlord-Tenant Dispute

    LA’s $1.2 Billion Graffiti Towers Put on Sale After Bankruptcy

    90 and 150: Two Numbers You Must Know

    Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes

    Rachel Reynolds Selected as Prime Member of ADTA

    Is Arbitration Okay Under the Miller Act? It Is if You Don’t Object

    Recent Developments Involving Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington

    Predicting the Future of Texas’s Grid Is a Texas-Sized Challenge

    Congratulations to Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, Peter Brown, Karen Baytosh, and Associate Matthew Cox for Their Inclusion in 2022 Best Lawyers!

    Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

    TRI Pointe Merges with Weyerhaeuser’s Real Estate Company

    Blockbuster Breakwater: Alternative Construction Method Put to the Test in Tampa Bay

    Nation’s Top Court Limits EPA's Authority in Clean Air Case

    Amazon Hits Pause on $2.5B HQ2 Project in Arlington, Va.

    New York’s Lawsky Proposes Changes to Reduce Home Foreclosures

    Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    ALERT: COVID-19 / Coronavirus-Related Ransomware and Phishing Attacks
    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

    Temporary Obstructions Are a Permanent Problem Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

    March 12, 2015 —
    Boxes, ladders, furniture or other objects commonly placed in aisles, walkways or paths may not be temporary obstructions and may be actionable under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) according to a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. DBA Pier 1 Imports #1132, No. 12-16857 (filed March 5, 2015). Many property and business owners have long operated under the assumption that they are not violating ADA regulations requiring minimum clear widths for accessible routes (“[t]he minimum clear width of an accessible route shall be 36 in[ches]” (28 C.F.R. pg. 36, app. A, § 4.3.3)) when they place objects that can easily be removed in aisles or pathways such as trash cans, ladders, plants, signs and the like because temporary obstructions are not considered violations of the ADA (28 C.F.R. § 36.211(b)). Reprinted courtesy of Max W. Gavron, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Keith M. Rozanski, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Gavron may be contacted at mgavron@hbblaw.com Mr. Rozanski may be contacted at krozanski@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    First-Party Statutory Bad Faith – 60 Days to Cure Means 60 Days to Cure

    October 19, 2020 —
    In a first party bad-faith lawsuit, such as a bad faith claim against an insured’s property insurer, there are three requirements that must be met before the bad faith lawsuit is filed: “‘(1) determination of the insurer’s liability for coverage; (2) determination of the extent of the insured’s damages; and (3) the required notice must be filed under section 624.155(3)(a).’” Fortune v. First Protective Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2092a (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (citation omitted). The third requirement is for the insured to file a Civil Remedy Notice (known as a “CRN”) as a condition precedent to filing a statutory bad faith lawsuit giving the insurer 60 days’ notice of the bad faith violation and to cure the violation, i.e., pay the claim if the violation is payment. A very common bad faith payment violation is the assertion that the insurer did NOT attempt “in good faith to settle claims when, under the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly towards its insured and with due regard for his or her interests.” Fla. Stat. s. 624.155(1)(b)(1). 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

    Maria Latest Threat to Puerto Rico After $1 Billion Irma Hit

    September 20, 2017 —
    Hurricane Maria was on course to hit Puerto Rico just two weeks after Irma caused as much as $1 billion in damages on the bankrupt island. Maria’s top winds were at 155 miles (250 kilometers) an hour, the National Hurricane Center said in a notice around 6 a.m. New York time. At Category 5, the strongest classification on the five-step Saffir-Simpson scale, Maria was about 35 miles southeast of San Juan in Puerto Rico. Reprinted courtesy of Brian K. Sullivan, Bloomberg and Ezra Fieser, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Recent Amendments and Caselaw Affecting the Construction Industry in Texas

    April 19, 2022 —
    Here are some recent Texas legislative amendments and Texas Supreme Court cases from the past year concerning the construction industry in Texas. 1) Recent Legislative Amendments Concerning the Construction Industry: a) The Texas Legislature throws a “Spear” in the Lonergan Doctrine to reduce general/subcontractor liability for owner-provided plans and specs: Forty-nine out of the fifty states follow the Spearin Doctrine under which owners warrant the accuracy and sufficiency of owner-provided plans and specs in construction contracts. On the other hand, for over a century, Texas has followed the Lonergan Doctrine under which, absent contractual language to the contrary, a general contractor/subcontractor, instead of the owner, bears the risk of deficiencies in owner-provided design documents, once they started construction. Texas Senate Bill 219, which went into effect on September 1, 2021, finally changed that and brought Texas in line with the rest of the country, with a few exceptions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Frederick H. Wen, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
    Mr. Wen may be contacted at fhwen@grsm.com

    Giving Insurance Carrier Prompt Notice of Claim to Avoid “Untimely Notice” Defense

    June 12, 2023 —
    When it comes to giving your insurance carrier notice of claim, I am an advocate of providing that notice as soon as possible, i.e., prompt notice. The reason is to take away the carrier’s argument to deny coverage because you, as the insured, failed to provide it with prompt notice—the “untimely notice” defense. It doesn’t matter whether it is a first party property insurance claim or third-party liability policy claim, provide notice as soon as reasonably possible to take away that “untimely notice” defense. The “untimely notice” defense was the issue in Benson v. Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D1085a (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) dealing with a first party property insurance policy. In this case, eighteen months after Hurricane Irma, the plaintiff noticed a smell and observed brown stains on walls and ceiling in his home. The plaintiff called roofing companies to inspect the damage and perform certain repairs. However, the plaintiff still noticed the smell so he called a company to test and remediate mold. The plaintiff, then, contacted his property insurer with numerous claims relative to the leaks and damage. Although there was an initial property insurance payment made, the carrier ultimately denied coverage for subsequent claims stating that “the late notice of the claim and the prior repairs to the roof substantially prejudiced its ability to complete an inspection of [plaintiff’s] property to evaluate the claim.” Benson, supra. 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

    Safety Accusations Fly in Dispute Between New York Developer and Contractor

    July 01, 2019 —
    The developer of a New York City high rise and the project's former prime contractor are trading unusually nasty safety related accusations in a dispute over the contractor's exit from the project. The contractor, New York City-based Pizzarotti, claims the settlement of the structure in soft soils creates hazards in future work that could send building components crashing to the streets. In reply, developer Fortis Property Group says the contractor’s uneven pace of work is to blame for what it sees as only slab misalignments that don’t compromise safety in any way. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
    Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/04/23) – NFL Star Gets into Real Estate, DOJ Focuses on “Buyer-Broker Commissions”, and the Auto Workers’ Strike Continues

    November 13, 2023 —
    In our latest roundup, seller impersonation fraud becomes an issue in the United States, major retailers are closing over 3,000 stores nationwide, the Tampa Rays are set to construct a new $1.3 billion stadium, and more!
    • NFL star Tyler Lockett is preparing for his life and career after football by becoming a real estate broker in both Washington state and Texas. (Brady Henderson, ESPN)
    • Seller impersonation fraud has become a major scam in the United States with 73% of real estate firms reporting an increase in these schemes since the beginning of the year. (Diane Tomb, Fortune)
    • “Buyer-broker commissions” are a focus for the U.S. Justice Department as they have filed a “statement of interest” in one case in Massachusetts while there are several other pending lawsuits in U.S. courts. (Mike Scarcella, Reuters)
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    California Supreme Court Shifts Gears on “Reverse CEQA”

    February 23, 2016 —
    The California Supreme Court has shifted gears on so-called “reverse CEQA” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The Supreme Court, in a much-anticipated decision, in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Case No. S213478 (December 17, 2015), held that public agencies subject to CEQA are not required to analyze whether existing environmental conditions may impact a proposed project’s future users or residents – also known as “reverse CEQA” or “CEQA in reverse” – as opposed to the more traditional analysis of a proposed project’s impact on the environment, unless: 1. The proposed project risks exacerbating existing environmental hazards – in which case, it is the proposed project’s impact on the environment not the environment’s impact on the proposed project, which compels the evaluation; or 2. A reverse CEQA analysis is already required under statute, for example, on certain airport, school and housing projects. 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