BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineers
    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


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

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “You Have No Class(ification)”

    Ambitious Building Plans in Boston

    Alleged Negligent Misrepresentation on Condition of Home is Not an Occurrence Causing Property Damage

    Insurers' Communications Through Brokers Not Privileged

    The Word “Estimate” in a Contract Matters as to a Completion Date

    Newark Trial Team Obtains Affirmance of Summary Judgment for General Contractor Client

    California Court of Appeal Vacates $30M Non-Economic Damages Award Due to Failure to Properly Apportion Liability and Attorney Misconduct During Closing Argument

    MapLab: Why More Americans Are Moving Toward Wildfire

    Macron Visits Notre Dame 2 Years After Devastating Fire

    A New Lawsuit Might Change the Real Estate Industry Forever

    Progress, Property, and Privacy: Discussing Human-Led Infrastructure with Jeff Schumacher

    Damage Caused Not by Superstorm Sandy, But by Faulty Workmanship, Not Covered

    Florida Adopts Less Stringent Summary Judgment Standard

    Colorado Governor Polis’s Executive Order D 2020 101: Keeping Up with Colorado’s Shifting Eviction Landscape during COVID-19

    Congratulations to Walnut Creek Partner Bryan Stofferahn and Associate Jeffrey Schilling for Winning a Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Their Client, a Regional Grocery Store!

    Design-build Trends, Challenges and Risk Mitigation

    A Lawyer's Perspective on Current Issues Dominating the Construction Industry

    Construction Professionals Could Face More Liability Exposure Following California Appellate Ruling

    Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 New York – Metro Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

    New California Standards Go into Effect July 1st

    Federal Court Holds That Other Insurance Analysis Is Unnecessary If Policies Cover Different Risks

    New York’s Lawsky Proposes Changes to Reduce Home Foreclosures

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Responding to Ransomware Learning from Colonial Pipeline

    Sellers' Alleged Misrepresentation Does Not Amount To An Occurrence

    Manhattan Developer Wants Claims Dismissed in Breach of Contract Suit

    North Carolina Appeals Court Threatens Long-Term Express Warranties

    Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2023

    Unesco Denies Claim It Cleared Construction of Zambezi Dam

    Practical Advice: Indemnification and Additional Insured Issues Revisited

    Is It Time to Digitize Safety?

    Court Slams the Privette Door on Independent Contractor’s Bodily Injury Claim

    Reminder: Pay if Paid Not All Encompassing (but Could it be?)

    The Woodland Hills Office Secures a Total Defense Award on Behalf of their High-End Custom Home Builder Client!

    Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit

    Federal Court Reiterates Broad Duty to Defend in Additional Insured Cases

    Pay-if-Paid Clauses, Nasty, but Enforceable

    Why Metro Atlanta Is the Poster Child for the US Housing Crisis

    Wildfire Risk Harms California Home Values, San Francisco Fed Study Finds

    Keeping KeyArena's Landmark Lid Overhead at Climate Pledge Arena Redevelopment Is A 22,000-Ton Balancing Act

    California Supreme Court Endorses City Authority to Adopt Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

    Cincinnati Team Secures Summary Judgment for Paving Company in Trip-and-Fall Case

    Mandatory Energy Benchmarking is On Its Way

    Sixth Circuit Holds that Some Official Actions Taken in the “Flint Water Crisis” Could Be Constitutional Due Process Violations

    This Times Square Makeover Is Not a Tourist Attraction

    Vinci Will Build $580M Calgary Project To Avoid Epic Flood Repeat

    Showdown Over Landmark Housing Law Looms at U.S. Supreme Court
    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

    Do Hurricane-Prone Coastal States Need to Update their Building Codes?

    April 15, 2015 —
    Property Casualty 360 reported that “a number of coastal states took no action to improve their building code systems since 2012, and a few have weaker systems in place, according to the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS).” The IBHS released their “Rating the States” report that published the results of their study of “the 18 most hurricane-prone states located along the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Coast on their building regulations.” States can receive up to 100 points, with a higher score reflecting better state building requirements. Delaware scored lowest with a mere 17 points—the same score it received in 2012. Virginia, the highest scored state, earned 95 points. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation: A Redux

    January 17, 2013 —
    I previously wrote an article entitled “The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation” for the Common Interests magazine, the monthly periodical of the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Community Associations Institute. In that article, I discussed the potential negative effects of homeowners associations bringing construction defect suits as anything other than a last resort. The purpose of this post is to bring to light, by way of a real life example, the problems discussed in my previous article.
     
    I have recently seen a lawsuit filed by an individual homeowner within a common interest community against the homeowners association, its management company, and the attorneys retained by the association to represent it in a construction defect lawsuit against the original developer, general contractor, and one of the design professionals. In his suit, the homeowner complains that the association’s construction defect attorneys “neglected to amend [their] complaint to include only and specifically the claims for damages for those properties, those buildings or condominium units, either by owner or specific locations, which had sustained damages or had faulty construction for which damages were being sought.” As a result of claiming damages throughout the entire community, the homeowner alleged that the entire community was tarred “with the black brush of litigation.”
     
    As the homeowner explained in his complaint, he purchased a condominium for his daughter-in-law when she moved to Colorado to care for him after the death of his wife. 
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain
    Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Drawing the Line: In Tennessee, the Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Apply to Contracts for Services

    December 11, 2023 —
    In Commercial Painting Co. v. Weitz Co. LLC, No. W2019-02089-SC-R11-CV, 2023 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (Weitz), the Supreme Court of Tennessee (Supreme Court) considered whether the economic loss doctrine barred the plaintiff’s claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and punitive damages arising out of a contract with the defendant for construction services. The court held that the economic loss doctrine only applies to product liability cases and does not apply to claims arising from contracts for services. This case establishes that, in Tennessee, the economic loss doctrine does not bar tort claims in disputes arising from service contracts. In Weitz, defendant, Weitz Co. LLC (Weitz), was the general contractor for a construction project and hired plaintiff Commercial Painting Co. (Commercial) as a drywall subcontractor. Weitz refused to pay Commercial for several of its payment applications, claiming that the applications were submitted untimely and contained improper change order requests. Commercial filed a lawsuit against Weitz seeking over $1.9 million in damages, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, enforcement of a mechanic’s lien, and interest and attorney’s fees under the Prompt Pay Act of 1991. Weitz filed a counterclaim for $500,000 for costs allegedly incurred due to Commercial’s delay and defective workmanship. In response, Commercial amended its complaint to add claims for fraud, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, rescission of the contract and $10 million in punitive damages. Commercial alleged that Weitz received an extension of the construction schedule but fraudulently withheld this information from Commercial and continued to impose unrealistic deadlines. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Commencing of the Statute of Repose for Construction Defects

    November 08, 2021 —
    Florida has a ten-year statute of repose which applies predominantly to construction defect claims. This can be found in Florida Statute s. 95.11(3)(c). After ten years, any rights relative to a construction defect claim are time-barred. However, the statute of repose date has been watered down and can be made to be more of a factual question due to the lack of objectivity as to the date that starts the ten-year repose clock. The watering down of the statute of repose date benefits parties asserting construction defect claims provided they strategically appreciate the question of fact that can be created when up against the statute of repose. Stated differently, when up against the clock to assert a construction defect claim, strategically develop those facts, evidence, and arguments to maximize creating a question of fact as to when the statute of repose clock commenced. Conversely, as a defendant sued for construction defects, you want to maximize the facts, evidence, and arguments to fully establish the date the statute of repose clock had to commence for purposes of a statute of repose defense. The recent opinion in Spring Isle Community Association, Inc. v. Herme Enterprises, Inc., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2306b (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) demonstrates the factual question associated with the clock that starts the statute of repose date. This factual question is created by Florida Statute s. 95.11(3)(c) that provides:
    [T]he action [founded on the design, planning, or construction of an improvement to real property] must be commenced within 10 years after the date of actual possession by the owner, the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, or the date of completion or termination of the contract between the professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and his or her employer, whichever date is latest.
    Spring Isle Community Association, supra. (Note, see also current s. 95.11(3)(c) version in effect per hyperlink above.)
    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

    Insurer Must Defend Claims of Alleged Willful Coal Removal

    June 21, 2017 —
    The court found that the insured was entitled to a defense against claims for its alleged willful removal of coal from third parties' land. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bizzack Constr, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70285 (W.D. Va. April 27, 2017). The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) contracted with Bizzack to perform work in widening U.S. Route 460. VDOT notified coal owners that it had been "necessary to remove certain coal" from their land during the construction of Route 460. Some of the coal owners sued Bizzack, seeking compensation for lost coal. They alleged Bizzack had illegally removed and sold their coal, and "damaged the remaining coal in place on the property." Bizzack sought coverage from Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual filed suit seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Bizzack. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. Liberty Mutual argued: (1) there was no "occurrence"; (2) exclusion j (5) applied; and (3) the "expected or intended injury" exclusion applied. 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

    Project-Specific Commercial General Liability Insurance

    May 13, 2019 —
    Many markets which provide insurance for construction projects include an endorsement providing coverage for “repair work” as part of their standard policy. “Repair work” endorsements are largely misunderstood by policyholders and the insurance broker community. They are typically assumed to be coverage enhancements, but many provide no additional coverage and actually risk reduction of coverage otherwise provided as part of the products-completed operations (“PCO”) extensions also found in these project-specific policies. This article is designed to help the reader understand these endorsements so that better decisions can be made at the point of purchase. Intent The common feature of these endorsements is a grant of coverage for bodily injury and property damage resulting from “repair work” for a specified period of time. Most endorsements define “repair work” to mean the repair of completed work performed pursuant to a contract or warranty. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeremiah M. Welch, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Welch may be contacted at jmw@sdvlaw.com

    You Can Now Build a Multi-Million Dollar Home via Your iPad

    January 07, 2015 —
    There are apps for real estate sales, apps for paint color, apps for arranging furniture, and apps for making the best use of natural light. But until now, there was no app for that most fundamental process of homesteading: creating a new one from scratch. In the coming weeks Al Hamra Real Estate Development will unveil its all-inclusive Home Builder app. All you need is an iPad and five million UAE Dirham ($1.36 million), to start. Swipe and spend has never been so elite. Designed by A++ Architecture Design and Communication, Home Builder starts with property acquisition and ends with finishes and furnishings. Well, to be precise, it ends with a form sent to a sales person to calculate a price to purchase. This means less time and fewer people and permits in your way, plus a more gratifying (literal) hands-on experience in the process. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sara Pepitone, Bloomberg

    SAFETY Act Part II: Levels of Protection

    June 21, 2024 —
    Part I of this series, SAFETY Act is Powerful Protection Against Emerging Liabilities, addressed the benefits of obtaining SAFETY Act coverage, including:
    • From a reputational perspective, SAFETY Act protection provides benefits even absent a security incident: it demonstrates that a knowledgeable federal agency has examined the relevant technology and determined that it is both safe and effective.
    • SAFETY Act protection can benefit companies taking steps to enhance the security of their physical premises and operations, or their cybersecurity defenses, to reduce their potential liability and enhance their reputation.
    • Other benefits include—depending on the level of protection—powerful liability protections including exclusive federal jurisdiction and choice of law for the venue where the incident occurred, caps on liability, prohibitions on punitive damages, and government contractor immunity.
    This post will explain the levels of protection that a company can seek under the SAFETY Act. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Kevin W. Jones, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Charlotte Leszinske, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Jones may be contacted at kjones@HuntonAK.com Ms. Leszinske may be contacted at cleszinske@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of