BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultant
    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


    No Coverage for Homeowner Named as Borrower in Policy but Not as Insured

    Trump Sues Casinos to Get Conditions Fixed or Name Off

    Nevada’s Home Building Industry can Breathe Easier: No Action on SB250 Leaves Current Attorney’s Fees Provision Intact

    Shutdowns? What A Covid-19-Safe Construction Site Looks Like

    Melissa Pang Elected Vice President of APABA-PA Board of Directors

    Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

    New York Nonprofit Starts Anti-Scaffold Law Video Series

    Safe Harbors- not just for Sailors anymore (or, why advance planning can prevent claims of defective plans & specs) (law note)

    Broker Not Negligent When Insured Rejects Additional Coverage

    FAA Seeks Largest Fine Yet on Drones in Near-Miss Crackdown

    Recent Statutory Changes Cap Retainage on Applicable Construction Projects

    ASCE Report Calls for Sweeping Changes to Texas Grid Infrastructure

    Mediation Fails In Federal Lawsuit Seeking Damages From Sureties for Alleged Contract Fraud

    What You Should Know About Liquidated Damages and Liability Caps for Delay and Performance Liquidated Damages

    Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Museums

    Temecula Office Secures Approval for Development of 972-Acre Community on Behalf of Pulte Homes

    The New “White Collar” Exemption Regulations

    Preparing For and Avoiding Residential Construction Disputes: For Homeowners and Contractors

    UK Court Rules Against Bechtel in High-Speed Rail Contract Dispute

    OSHA Issues Fines for Fatal Building Collapse in Philadelphia

    Edinburg School Inspections Uncovered Structural Construction Defects

    Pollution Exclusion Found Ambiguous

    New York Regulator Issues Cyber Insurance Guidelines

    Minnesota Senate Office Building Called Unconstitutional

    Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud

    Is Performance Bond Liable for Delay Damages?

    Beam Cracks Cause Closure of San Francisco’s New $2B Transit Center

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Arbitration Motion Practice

    Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees on Attorney’s Fees

    Identifying and Accessing Coverage in Complex Construction Claims

    Insurers Need only Prove that Other Coverage Exists for Construction Defect Claims

    Macron Visits Notre Dame 2 Years After Devastating Fire

    John Paulson’s $1 Billion Caribbean Empire Faces Betrayal

    Texas Court Requires Insurer to Defend GC Despite Breach of Contract Exclusion

    Options When there is a Construction Lien on Your Property

    Making the Construction Industry a Safer place for Women

    Insurers' Motion to Determine Lack of Occurrence Fails

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/29/24) – Megaprojects on the Rise, Agency Guidance for CRE, and an Upbeat Forecast for Commercial Real Estate Investment

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (12/4/24) – Highest Rate of Office Conversions, Lending Caps for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Affordability Challenges for Homebuyers

    Texas Legislative Update

    Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

    Need and Prejudice: An Eleventh-Hour Trial Continuance Where A Key Witness Is Unexpectedly Unavailable

    Rhode Island District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Case for Spoliation Due to Potential Unfair Prejudice to Defendant

    Reminder: A Little Pain Now Can Save a Lot of Pain Later

    Tokyo's Skyline Set to See 45 New Skyscrapers by 2020 Olympics

    Building Amid the COVID Challenge

    How Are You Dealing with Material Delays / Supply Chain Impacts?

    AAA Revises Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures

    The Comcast Project is Not Likely to Be Shut Down Too Long
    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

    Wage Theft Investigations and Citations in the Construction Industry

    October 11, 2017 —
    This month we share some cautionary tales for employers in the construction industry. During the past several months the California Labor Commissioner has cited or filed suit against several construction companies. In one investigation, a general contractor was held equally responsible for wages owed by a subcontractor to its employees. The lesson learned from these stories is that now more than ever it is important to have in place proper wage and hour practices and to conduct periodic audits of those practices, including those of your lower tiered contractors, preferably by experienced legal counsel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Evelin Y. Bailey, California Construction Law Blog

    Scotiabank Is Cautious on Canada Housing as RBC, BMO Seek Action

    April 12, 2021 —
    Bank of Nova Scotia, Canada’s third-largest lender, waded into the burgeoning debate over whether Justin Trudeau’s government should take immediate steps to cool the nation’s hot housing market, issuing a report that cautioned against rushing to implement new constraints. In a report released Sunday, Scotiabank’s chief economist Jean-Francois Perrault said the recent run-up in home prices nationally over the past year was in large part driven by sluggish supply that failed to keep up with higher demand -- a trend that could reverse itself as new sellers enter the market in coming weeks. If the government does decide to take action, it should target housing speculators, he said. Reprinted courtesy of Shelly Hagan, Bloomberg and Erik Hertzberg, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Third Circuit Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Despite Insured’s Expectations

    November 21, 2018 —
    In its recent decision in Frederick Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hall, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31666 (3d Cir. Nov. 8, 2018), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had occasion to consider Pennsylvania’s doctrine of reasonable expectations in the context of a faulty workmanship claim. Hallstone procured a general liability policy from Frederick Mutual to insure its masonry operations. Notably, when purchasing the policy through an insurance broker, Hallstone’s principal stated that he wanted the “maximum” “soup to nuts” coverage for his company. Hallstone was later sued by a customer for alleged defects in its masonry work. While Frederick agreed to provide a defense, it also commenced a lawsuit seeking a judicial declaration that its policy excluded coverage for faulty workmanship. The district court agreed that the business risk exclusions applied, but nevertheless found in favor of Hallstone based on the argument that Hallstone had a reasonable expectation that when applying for an insurance policy affording “soup to nuts” coverage, it this would include coverage for faulty workmanship claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
    Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

    California Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against Builders

    June 10, 2015 —
    In Belasco v. Wells, 183 Cal. Rptr.3d 840, 234 Cal. App. 4th 409 (2015), the California Court of Appeals for the Second District addressed the question of whether a homeowner, when settling an administrative complaint against a licensed homebuilder, can release future, unknown claims. Despite the presence of a California statute, Cal. Civ. Code § 1542, stating that a general release does not extend to claims that the releasor does not know about, the court held that the homeowner’s express release of future claims was enforceable. Thus, the homeowner’s release - signed as part of a 2006 settlement of the homeowner’s construction defect claims against the defendant, a homebuilder - barred the homeowner’s 2012 claims against the builder based on latent defects in the roof of the home that the homeowner discovered in 2011. Background The plaintiff, David Belasco, a patent attorney, bought a newly-constructed home from the defendant-builder, Gary Wells, in 2004. Wells holds a Class B General Building Contractor license issued by the Contractors State License Board (the Board). In 2006, Belasco filed a complaint against Wells with the Board based on alleged construction defects in the home. As a result of Belasco’s complaint to the Board, the parties engaged in arbitration. At the arbitration, both parties were represented by counsel. Wells offered to settle the dispute for the sum of $25,000 and Belasco accepted Wells’ offer. Reprinted courtesy of Edward A. Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP and William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds Lay Witness Can Provide Opinion Testimony on the Value of a Property If the Witness Had an Opportunity to Form a Reasoned Opinion

    September 25, 2018 —
    In Woodrum v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 815 S.E.2d 650 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018), the Court of Appeals of Georgia considered whether the lower court properly disqualified a contractor as an expert witness and excluded the contractor from offering lay opinion testimony regarding the value of a property. The Court of Appeals held that, while the lower court properly disqualified the contractor as an expert witness, it improperly excluded the general contractor’s lay opinion testimony regarding the value of the property. This case establishes that, in Georgia, a lay witness can provide opinion testimony on the value of a property if the proponent of the testimony demonstrates that the witness had an opportunity to form a reasoned opinion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

    November 28, 2018 —
    The Second Circuit recently held that competing “anti-concurrent cause” provisions in a commercial property policy present a potential ambiguity that could result in favor of coverage for losses sustained by Madelaine Chocolate after storm surge from Hurricane Sandy combined to cause substantial damage to Madelaine’s property and a resulting loss of income. Madelaine was insured under an all-risk insurance policy issued by Chubb subsidiary Great Northern Insurance Company. By endorsement, Madelaine’s policy added “windstorm” as a covered peril and defined “windstorm” as “wind… regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributes concurrently to, or contributed in any sequence to, the loss or damage.” The policy also included a common flood exclusion that removed coverage for loss or damage caused by or resulting from waves, tidal water, or tidal waves, or the rising, overflowing, or breaking of any natural harbors, oceans, or any other body of water, whether driven by wind or not. Like the windstorm endorsement, the flood exclusion contained concurrency language that broadened the exclusion to any loss to which flood contributed, regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributed to the loss. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Tae Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Andrews may be contacted at tandrews@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Patti Santelle Honored by Rutgers School of Law with Arthur E. Armitage Sr. Distinguished Alumni Award

    March 01, 2021 —
    White and Williams is proud to announce that Patti Santelle, Chair Emeritus, will be honored by the Rutgers School of Law-Camden Alumni Association with the 2020 Arthur E. Armitage Sr. Distinguished Alumni Award. The Armitage Award was established in 1983 in memory of Armitage, who, with a group of interested citizens, founded both the South Jersey Law School in 1926 and its companion College of South Jersey in 1927. Past recipients include governors, member of Congress, state and federal judges, and industry leaders. Patti, a 1985 graduate, is a Co-Chair of the Executive Committee of the newly established Rutgers Law Alumnae Network and a Past Chancellor and long-time member of the Board of the Rutgers-Camden Law Alumni Association. While in law school, she was President of the Student Bar Association, winner of the Hunter Advanced Moot Court Competition and a member of the National Moot Court Team. In 2010, Patti received the Scarlet Oak Meritorious Service Award from Rutgers University for her contributions as an alumni leader and student mentor at the law school. For the past seven years, she served as the Managing Partner and Chair of the Executive Committee at White and Williams, the first woman in the firm’s history and in the City of Philadelphia to serve in that role in a major law firm. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patricia Santelle, White and Williams
    Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com

    Federal Court Dismisses Coverage Action in Favor of Pending State Proceeding

    October 12, 2020 —
    The federal district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the coverage action that was parallel to a case pending in state court involving the same parties and same issues pending. Navigators Ins, Co. v. Chriso's Tree Trimming, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129711 (E.D. Calif. July 22, 2020). Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) entered into a tree, brush and wood removal contract with Mount F Enterprises, Inc. Mountain F subsequently entered into a subcontractor agreement with Chriso Tree Trimming, Inc. for work to be performed for PG&E. In August 2017, Chriso attempted to remove a tree, but the tree accidentally fell in the wrong direction and knocked down nearby powerlines. The powerlines came into contact with surrounding brush and started the "Railroad Fire." The fire was eventually contained on September 15, 2017, after 12, 407 acres were burned and 7 structures and 7 homes were destroyed. Five subrogation lawsuits were filed in state court against Chriso and Mountain F by various insurance companies that paid for the damage caused by the Railroad Fire. A policy limits demand to settle all claims against Chriso and Mountain F was made. Navigators insured Chriso for $9 million through a Commercial Excess Liability Policy, payable once all other insurance was exhausted. The policy included a "Professional Services Endorsement" (PSE Exclusion) that excluded coverage of "professional services." "Professional services" was defined through a list of 12 non-exclusive professions and services that generally referred to activities involving specialized knowledge or skill that was predominantly mental or intellectual in nature rather than physical or manual. 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