BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building 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


    GIS and BIM Integration Will Transform Infrastructure Design and Construction

    Less Than Perfectly Drafted Endorsement Bars Flood Coverage

    The G2G Year-End Roundup (2022)

    New Addition To New Jersey Court Rules Impacts More Than Trial Practice

    Job Growth Seen as Good News for North Carolina Housing Market

    Suffolk Pauses $1.5B Boston Tower Project for Safety Audit After Fire

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement

    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    If a Defect Occurs During Construction, Is It an "Occurrence?"

    Federal Court Dismisses Coverage Action in Favor of Pending State Proceeding

    Delaware Supreme Court Won’t Halt Building

    California Contractor Spills Coffee on Himself by Failing to Stay Mechanics Lien Action While Pursuing Arbitration

    Construction Halted in Wisconsin Due to Alleged Bid Issues

    New Law Impacting Florida’s Statute of Repose

    Without Reservations: Fourth Circuit Affirms That Vague Reservation of Rights Waived Insurers’ Coverage Arguments

    Virginia Allows Condominium Association’s Insurer to Subrogate Against a Condominium Tenant

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Indemnity Coverage For Damage Caused by Named Insured

    Banks Loosening U.S. Mortgage Standards: Chart of the Day

    Homebuilding Still on the Rise

    New Notary Language For Mechanics Lien Releases and Stop Payment Notice Releases

    Is Your Contract “Mission Essential?” Recovering Costs for Performing During a Force Majeure Event Under Federal Regulations

    New Tariffs Could Shorten Construction Expansion Cycle

    Construction Group Seeks Defense Coverage for Hard Rock Stadium Claims

    Toll Brothers Faces Construction Defect Lawsuit in New Jersey

    Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations

    Waiver of Subrogation and Lack of Contractual Privity Bars Commercial Tenants’ Claims

    NY Pay-to-Play Charges Dropped Against LPCiminelli Executive As Another Pleads Guilty

    Hurricane Milton Barrels Toward Florida With 180 MPH Winds

    Engineering, Architecture, and Modern Technology – An Interview with Dr. Jakob Strømann-Andersen

    What You Need to Know About Notices of Completion, Cessation and Non-Responsibility

    Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects

    Texas Federal District Court Dismisses COVID-19 Claim

    “Unwinnable”: Newark Trial Team Obtains Unanimous “No Cause” Verdict in Challenging Matter on Behalf of NYC Mutual Housing Association

    Insurers Must Defend Allegations of Faulty Workmanship

    Nuclear Fusion Pushes to Reach Commercial Power Plant Stage

    California’s Wildfire Dilemma: Put Houses or Forests First?

    Multiple Construction Errors Contributed to Mexico Subway Collapse

    Jury Awards Aluminum Company 35 Million in Time Element Losses

    NY State Appellate Court Holds That Pollution Exclusions Bar Duty to Defend Under Liability Policies for Claims Alleging Exposure to PFAS

    General Contractors Have Expansive Common Law and Statutory Duties To Provide a Safe Workplace

    Lane Construction Sues JV Partner Skanska Over Orlando I-4 Project

    Undercover Sting Nabs Eleven Illegal Contractors in California

    Homeowners Sued for Failing to Disclose Defects

    Appraisal Panel Can Determine Causation of Loss under Ohio Law

    Mercury News Editorial Calls for Investigation of Bay Bridge Construction

    Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/23/24) – Construction Backlog Rebounds, Real Estate Sustainability Grows, and Split Incentive Gap Remains Building Decarbonizing Barrier

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

    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
    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

    New Survey Reveals Present-Day Risks of Asbestos Exposure in America - 38% in High-Risk Jobs, 47% Vulnerable through Second-Hand Exposure

    April 08, 2024 —
    AUSTIN, April 04, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A recent nationwide survey conducted on the risks of asbestos in America revealed that 38% of respondents have worked in high-risk industries where asbestos was present, while 47% have experienced indirect exposure through family members employed in these high-risk environments. The survey results reflect the fact that, despite the EPA's recent ban on ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, the threat of exposure still looms large in the US, underscoring the urgent need for continued vigilance and action to safeguard public health. Compounding the concern is the revelation that only 8% of Americans undergo regular testing. These findings, released today, underscore the urgent necessity for Asbestos Cancer Risk Awareness and routine testing. They emphasize the crucial importance of proactive measures to mitigate the pervasive risks associated with asbestos exposure in the United States. The study was conducted by Researchscape on behalf of The Law Offices of Justinian C. Lane, Esq. - PLLC, a leading firm advocating for testing and compensation for individuals exposed to asbestos on the job and their families who are at risk due to second-hand exposure. According to the survey, 86% of respondents have never undergone any testing for asbestos exposure, while a mere 8% are tested regularly. The lack of testing is particularly concerning among the Gen X demographic who could be at risk due to secondhand exposure from a family member who worked with asbestos when it was still prevalent, with 92% reporting no testing, highlighting the potential risks associated with secondhand exposure. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Arizona Supreme Court Holds a Credit Bid at a Trustee’s Sale Should Not be Credited to a Title Insurer Under a Standard Lender’s Title Policy To the Extent the Bid Exceeds the Collateral’s Fair Market Value

    March 01, 2017 —
    The Arizona Supreme Court recently addressed what impact, if any, a lender’s credit bid at an Arizona trustee’s sale has on an insurer’s liability under Sections 2, 7 and 9 of the standard’s lender’s title policy (“Policy”), holding in Equity Income Partners, LP v. Chicago Title Insurance Company, 241 Ariz. 334, 387 P.3d 1263 (February 7, 2017) as follows: 1. Section 2 of the Policy, entitled “Continuation of Insurance,” not Section 9, entitled “Reduction of Insurance; Reduction or Termination of Liability,” applies when a lender acquires property at a trustee sale by “either a full- or partial-credit bid” since Section 2 directly addresses the existence and amount of coverage in such circumstances. Id. at 1267. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Herold, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Herold may be contacted at rherold@swlaw.com

    Construction Defect Reform Dies in Nevada Senate

    May 10, 2013 —
    Nevada’s SB161 has failed to move out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill would have reduced the time in which homeowners could file suits and also would have forbidden the inclusion of attorney’s fees as damages. A similar bill remains active in the Nevada House. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Appellate Court Reinforces When the Attorney-Client Relationship Ends for Purposes of “Continuous Representation” Tolling Provision of Legal Malpractice Statute of Limitations

    October 20, 2016 —
    In Gotek Energy, Inc. v. Socal IP Law Group, LLP (No. B26668, October 12, 2016), the Second District Court of Appeal held that rather than the date on which a client file is transferred to new counsel, the attorney-client relationship ends for statute of limitations purposes when, using an objective standard, there is no “ongoing mutual relationship” nor evidence of “activities in furtherance of the relationship.” (Emphasis in opinion.) Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    And the Cyber-Beat Goes On. Yet Another Cyber Regulatory Focus for Insurers

    April 15, 2015 —
    Regulators and government agencies are sharpening their focus on the issues surrounding cyber risk. The number of pronouncements are too numerous to recite in a single client alert but the overarching message is clear – be prepared or be subject to attack. Attacks not only will come from hackers, customers, consumers and, ultimately the plaintiffs’ bar, but the regulators themselves. Vulnerability lies not only with cyber attacked companies but increasingly with the companies’ officers and directors who fail to adequately safeguard data. On March 26, 2015, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) announced that it would be expanding its information technology examination procedures to focus on cyber risk. This effort was a follow-up to its February 8, 2015 announcement of new cyber assessments (See "Not Just Another Client Alert about Cyber-Risk and Effective Cybersecurity Insurance Regulatory Guidance," March 24, 2015). Not to be outdone, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) proposed a comprehensive and mandatory filing for property casualty insurers that would give regulators a full range of information and data on cyber risk exposures issued by carriers in the insurance market. This proposal comes on the heels of President Obama’s proposal, just two months ago, to create the Cyber Threat Intelligent Integration Center (CTIIC), a new federal agency designed to fight cyber attacks, provide collaboration and encourage information sharing between the Federal government and private industry. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert Ansehl, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Ansehl may be contacted at ansehlr@whiteandwilliams.com

    General Contractor’s Professional Malpractice/Negligence Claim Against Design Professional

    November 30, 2017 —
    A recent case supports a professional malpractice (negligence) claim by a general contractor against a design professional by reversing a trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the design professional and finding a question of fact remained as to an architect’s role in the renovation of a public construction project. By the appellate court finding that a question of fact remained, the appellate court was finding that it was a triable issue, which is exactly what the general contractor wanted in this case. Getting this issue and the facts to the jury is the leverage the general contractor presumably wanted. 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

    Undocumented Debris at Mississippi Port Sparks Legal Battle

    July 26, 2017 —
    Undocumented underground debris fields at a Gulf of Mexico port project are at the heart of a contractor’s nearly $50-million federal lawsuit against the Mississippi Development Authority and eight engineering and construction consultants. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    New York Appellate Court Applies Broad Duty to Defend to Property Damage Case

    January 03, 2022 —
    In the recent case of New York Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. Eastman Cooke & Associates, 153 N.Y.S.3d 840, 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dept. 2021), New York’s first department affirmed a duty to defend under New York law. In the underlying action, the plaintiff alleged property damages due to prolonged construction work in a different unit of the subject property. The underlying plaintiff sued the owner of the subject property, which in turn sued Eastman Cooke, the general contractor at the premises. New York Marine denied coverage to Eastman Cooke, asserting that the underlying suit did not seek damages occurring during the New York Marine policy period, and commenced a declaratory judgment action. The trial court held—and the First Department affirmed—that New York Marine has a duty to defend Eastman Cooke. Initially, the court found that the underlying suit alleged property damage as required for coverage, because there were allegations regarding loss of use of the property. The court also found that the underlying suit alleged damages occurring during the New York Marine policy period. Although the underlying complaint alleged that the underlying plaintiffs were reimbursed for damages occurring during the New York Marine policy period by another insurer, the court held that the evidence was that the payments only covered a certain part of the damages sought. Accordingly, because there was a reasonable possibility that some unreimbursed damages may fall within the New York Marine policy period. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com