BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect 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


    The Heat Is On

    The Project “Completion” Paradox in California

    Court Finds That Split in Underground Storage Tank is Not a Covered Collapse

    Feds Outline Workforce Rules for $39B in Chip Plant Funding

    New Jersey Appellate Decision Reminds Bid Protestors to Take Caution When Determining Where to File an Action

    U.S. Stocks Fall as Small Shares Tumble Amid Home Sales

    OSHA Launches Program to Combat Trenching Accidents

    ISO Proposes New Designated Premises Endorsement in Response to Hawaii Decision

    BUILD Act Inching Closer To Reality

    Sellers' Alleged Misrepresentation Does Not Amount To An Occurrence

    World Green Building Council Calls for Net-Zero Embodied Carbon in Buildings by 2050

    The Hunton Policyholder’s Guide to Artificial Intelligence: SEC’s Recent AI-Washing Claims Present D&O Risks, Potential Coverage Challenges

    Colorado Supreme Court Decision Could Tarnish Appraisal Process for Policyholders

    New Jersey Legislation Would Bar Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause in Homeowners' Policies

    'There Was No Fighting This Fire,' California Survivor Says

    Court Finds Matching of Damaged Materials is Required by Policy

    Farewell Capsule Tower, Tokyo’s Oddest Building

    The “Builder’s Remedy” Looms Over Bay Area Cities

    How the Jury Divided $112M in Seattle Crane Collapse Damages

    South Caroline Holds Actual Cash Value Can Include Depreciation of Labor Costs

    Ninth Circuit Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment to Insurer For Fortuitous Loss

    West Coast Casualty’s 25th Construction Defect Seminar Has Begun

    Construction Defect Reform Dies in Nevada Senate

    PCL Sues Big Bank for $30M in Claimed NJ Mall Unpaid Work

    This Times Square Makeover Is Not a Tourist Attraction

    3M PFAS Water Settlement Could Reach $12.5B

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increased 5% in Year to June

    Discussing Parametric Design with Shajay Bhooshan of Zaha Hadid Architects

    Construction Law Firm Welin, O'Shaughnessy + Scheaf Merging with McDonald Hopkins LLC

    New York Shuts Down Majority of Construction

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Colorado SB 15-177 UPDATE: Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee Refers Construction Defect Reform Bill to Full Senate

    Court of Appeal Holds Only “Named Insureds” May Sue for Bad Faith Under California FAIR Plan Policy

    Fraudster Sells 24-Bedroom ‘King’s Speech’ London Mansion

    Construction Companies Must Prepare for a Surge of Third-Party Contractors

    When to use Arbitration to Resolve Construction Disputes

    Can a Non-Union Company Be Compelled to Arbitrate?

    What to do about California’s Defect-Ridden Board of Equalization Building

    California Court Forces Insurer to Play Ball in COVID-19 Insurance Coverage Suit

    Google Advances Green Goal With AES Deal for Carbon-Free Power

    Lien Claimant’s Right to Execute against Bond Upheld in Court of Appeals

    Failure to Consider Safety Element in Design Does Not Preclude Public Entity’s Discretionary Authority Under Design Immunity Defense

    Unit Owners Have No Standing to Sue under Condominium Association’s Policy

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 5: Valuation of Loss, Sublimits, and Amount of Potential Recovery

    Carbon Monoxide Injuries Caused by One Occurrence

    Wait, You Want An HOA?! Restricting Implied Common-Interest Communities

    Stormy Seas Ahead: 5th Circuit to Review Whether Maritime Law Applies to Offshore Service Contract

    Construction Contract Basics: Venue and Choice of Law

    Pending Home Sales in U.S. Increase Less Than Forecast

    The Role of Code Officials in the Design-Build Process
    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

    Construction Lien Does Not Include Late Fees Separate From Interest

    December 30, 2019 —
    Construction liens can include unpaid finance charges. But, what about late fees? You know, the late fees that certain vendors like to include in their contract or purchase order unrelated to finance charges. An added cost for being delinquent with your payment. Can a late fee be tacked onto the lien too? In a recent case, Fernandez v. Manning Building Supplies, Inc., 2019 WL 4655988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), a residential owner hired a contractor for a renovation job. The contractor entered into a contract with a material supplier. The terms of the supplier’s contract with the contractor provided that there would be a 1.5% delinquency charge for late payments and it seemed apparent that the delinquency charge was separate from finance charges. Florida Statute s. 713.06(1) provides in relevant portion:
    A materialman or laborer, either of whom is not in privity with the owner, or a subcontractor or sub-subcontractor who complies with the provisions of this part and is subject to the limitations thereof, has a lien on the real property improved for any money that is owed to him or her for labor, services, or materials furnished in accordance with his or her contract and with the direct contract and for any unpaid finance charges due under the lienor’s contract.
    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

    Architect, Engineer, and Design Professional Liens in California: A Different Animal than the Mechanics’ Lien

    August 15, 2022 —
    Most in the construction industry are familiar with the rules governing California mechanics’ liens. They know that the Preliminary Notice of Civil Code Section 8034 and 8200-8216 is an important foundational prerequisite document and that the deadline to record a mechanics’ lien is generally triggered by events occurring at the end of construction, including completion of the work of improvement and/or the recording of the notice of completion or notice of cessation. Most of these rules are found in California Civil Code sections 8160-8494. While architects, engineers and other design professionals are certainly entitled to pursue a mechanics’ lien at the end of a construction project when they are unpaid for their work, unless they also consider the remedy available to them under the California “design professional lien,” they are missing a powerful opportunity to preserve the right to payment only available to architects, engineers, and design professionals. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Governmental Action Exclusion Bars Claim for Damage to Insured's Building

    November 27, 2023 —
    The lower court's decision finding no coverage based upon the governmental action exclusion was affirmed by the Appellate Court of Illinois. McCann Plumbing, Heating & Cooling v. Pekin Ins. Co., 2023 Ill.App. LEXIS 300 (Ill. App. Ct. Aug. 23, 2023). McCann purchased a building to use for its heating, ventilation, and air conditioning business. The building was surrounded by two unihhabited properties which often flooded. The city determined that a building on the adjacent property had to be demolished. In the course of destruction, the McCann's building was damaged, leaving a portion of their building open to the elements. McCann sought coverage from Pekin for damage incurred in the demolition. The policy provided coverage for "direct physical loss of or damage to" the covered property. Pekin denied coverage under the policy's governmental action exclusion, which provided,
    We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by any of the following: . . . c. Governmental Action Seizure or destruction of property by order of governmental authority . . .
    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

    United States Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in EEOC Subpoena Case

    March 29, 2017 —
    On September 29, 2016, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in McLane Co. Inc. v. EEOC, case number 15-1248, a case that asks the Court to resolve a split in the Circuit Courts of Appeals on the proper standard of review applied to a district court decision to quash or enforce a subpoena issued by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The decision by our highest court on the correct standard of review will have important implications for businesses, because if a litigant is displeased with a lower court's decision, it may get two bites at the apple. Such an outcome will likely encourage more appeals, drawn-out investigations and increase legal fees. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court decides that the Ninth Circuit was wrong and that a deferential standard of review (as opposed to a de nova standard) is appropriate, the losing side in future cases is more likely to accept the decision of the lower district court, knowing its chances of winning on appeal are slim. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey M. Daitz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Rashmee Sinha, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Daitz may be contacted at jdaitz@pecklaw.com Ms. Sinha may be contacted at rsinha@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Two Injured in Walkway Collapse of Detroit Apartment Complex

    May 30, 2018 —
    ABC WXYZ Local News reported that a balcony collapsed at the Anthoes Garden Apartments in Detroit, Michigan. Two people were witnessed falling from the upper walkway through the second and third floors, landing on the cement, sidewalk below. Neighbors pulled the thirty-something woman out of the debris, but the sixty-something man remained trapped under cement chunks and told the rescuers that he could not breathe. The neighbors used car jacks to raise the cement blocks to relieve pressure while waiting for help to arrive. Firefighters rescued residents from the apartments. The fire marshall condemned the building. However, according to ABC News, "people who live in apartments nearby are afraid to leave because of the walkway's instability." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hennigh Law Corporation Wins Award Against Viracon, Inc In Defective Gray PIB Case

    July 11, 2022 —
    LOS ANGELES, July 08, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Hennigh Law Corporation has announced that, after an over four-year battle in and out of court, a three arbitrator panel issued a 93-page interim award in finding Viracon, Inc., liable for $13,682,840 in direct damages for defrauding the owner of the premier office building in Burbank, California, The Pointe. The matter now enters the second phase, where the arbitration panel will rule on the amount of punitive damages to assess, as well as attorney fees and interest. Scott Hennigh, trial attorney, states, "The California construction industry is very robust with high standards. The arbitration panel appears to have recognized that California law does not tolerate large out-of-state companies misleading customers. They appear poised to send a message to Viracon about its lack of corporate responsibility." The premier Class-A office building in Burbank, California, The Pointe, serves high-end tenants in entertainment industries such as Warner Brothers. Constructed in 2009, the 13 exterior curtain wall of the 13-story building is encased in seamless glass panels. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Hennigh, Hennigh Law Corporation
    Mr. Hennigh may be contacted at Scott.hennigh@hennighlaw.com

    Insolvency of Primary Carrier Does Not Invoke Excess Coverage

    January 06, 2016 —
    The insured failed to present any argument for excess coverage after the insolvency of the primary carrier. Canal Ins. Co. v. Montello, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20625 (10th Cir. Nov. 27, 2015). Montello distributed an oil drill containing asbestos between 1966 and 1985. Montello was sued by individuals claiming injuries due to exposure to the asbestos. Montello was insured by The Home Insurance Company from March 1975 to March 1984. In 2003, Home was declared insolvent. Home did not pay any claims for bodily injury on Montello's behalf. 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

    Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage for Injury To Subcontractor's Employee

    April 28, 2014 —
    The Third Circuit reversed the district court and held that the additional insured was covered for injury to the subcontractor's employee despite an employee's exclusion in the policy. ArcelorMittal Plate, LLC v. Joule Technical Serv, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2905 (3d Cir. Feb. 18, 2014). ArcelorMittal Plate, LLC (AMP) owned a steel production facility. AMP contracted with Joule, an industrial staffing and engineering firm, for regular performance of maintenance and repair work at its plant. Joule was obligated to provide a CGL policy adding AMP as an additional insured "for all claims including, but not limited to, claims by Joule's employees." Joule added AMP as an additional insured to its policy with Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. The policy had an "employee exclusion" which stated, “This insurance does not apply to bodily injury to (1) an employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of (a) employment by the insured or (b) performing duties related to the conduct of the insured's business.” 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