BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut architecture 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


    Hunton Insurance Team Wins Summary Judgment on Firm’s Own Hurricane Harvey Business Income Loss

    Specified Or Designated Operations Endorsement – Limitation of Insurance Coverage

    First Quarter Gains in Housing Affordability

    Minnesota Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade for the Second Time

    Incorrect Information Provided on Insurance Application Defeats Claim for Coverage

    JAMS Announces Updated Construction Rules

    Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic

    Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment

    Why a Challenge to Philadelphia’s Project Labor Agreement Would Be Successful

    Minnesota Senate Office Building Called Unconstitutional

    Gain in Home Building Points to Sustained U.S. Growth

    California Court of Appeal Affirms Trial Court’s Denial of anti-SLAPP Motion in Dispute Over Construction of Church Facilities

    Justice Dept., EPA Ramp Up Environmental Justice Enforcement

    Pulling the Plug

    Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract Language Matters

    Number of Occurrences Depends on Who is Sued

    To Catch a Thief

    Rio de Janeiro's Bursting Real-Estate Bubble

    Putting 3D First, a Model Bridge Rises in Norway

    Traub Lieberman Partner Michael K. Kiernan and Associate Brandon Christian Obtain Dismissal with Prejudice in Favor of Defendant

    Competition to Design Washington D.C.’s 11th Street Bridge Park

    Housing Gains Not Leading to Hiring

    Slowing Home Sales Show U.S. Market Lacks Momentum: Economy

    Virginia Families Hope to Sue over Chinese Drywall

    Powering Goal Congruence in Construction Through Smart Contracts

    Jury Awards Aluminum Company 35 Million in Time Element Losses

    U.S. Housing Starts Exceed Estimates After a Stronger December

    Admissibility of Expert Opinions in Insurance Bad Faith Trials

    Major Change to Residential Landlord Tenant Law

    SB800 Not the Only Remedy for Construction Defects

    Texas Supreme Court Authorizes Exception to the "Eight-Corners" Rule

    Not Remotely Law as Usual: Don’t Settle for Delays – Settle at Remote Mediation

    Health Care Construction Requires Compassion, Attention to Detail and Flexibility

    Disputes Will Not Be Subject to Arbitration Provision If There Is No “Significant Relationship”

    A Compilation of Quirky Insurance Claims

    Manhattan Trophy Home Sellers Test Buyer Limits on Price

    New Joint Venture to Develop a New Community in Orange County, California

    South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies

    Decline in Home Construction Brings Down Homebuilder Stocks

    Georgia Supreme Court Limits Damages Under Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act

    Earthquake Hits Mid-Atlantic Region; No Immediate Damage Reports

    Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Bars Coverage for Collapse of Building

    Garlock Five Years Later: Recent Decisions Illustrate Ongoing Obstacles to Asbestos Trust Transparency

    10-story Mass Timber 'Rocking' Frame Sails Through Seismic Shake Tests

    David McLain Recognized Among the 2021 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America© for Construction Law

    Thirteen Payne & Fears Attorneys Honored by Best Lawyers

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2020 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    You Are on Notice: Failure to Comply With Contractual Notice Provisions Can Be Fatal to Your Claim

    Federal Judge Rips Shady Procurement Practices at DRPA

    Paul Tetzloff Elected As Newmeyer & Dillion Managing Partner
    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. Leveraging 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

    Construction Problems May Delay Bay Bridge

    May 10, 2013 —
    Faulty bolts could lead to a delay in the opening of the Bay Bridge. Caltrans noticed problems with bolts and found that the bolts had cracked. Of the 98 bolts already tightened, 30 have failed. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, workers will be tightening all 288 bolts and then testing them. According to Tony Anziano, Caltrans’s toll bridge program manager, repairs could take one or two months. Mr. Anziano noted that the manufacturer might be responsible for part of the expense, but that the budget for the bridge also has funds set aside for unanticipated repairs. The bolts were supplied by Dyson, an Ohio company, but it was clear whether Dyson manufactured the bolts or simply marketed them. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    IRMI Expert Commentary: Managing Insurance Coverage from Multiple Insurers

    May 11, 2020 —
    What do you do when less is more? In many loss scenarios, triggering coverage under multiple policies can be a critical and effective strategy. However, doing so has the potential to complicate the insurance recovery proceedings immensely, and possibly even undermine those overall goals. The relation of "other insurance" clauses, allocation schemes, and the practical impacts of interacting with multiple insurers can all leave the insured with some difficult questions. We present here several scenarios that illustrate how these concerns can arise and how they should be addressed to avoid running into what The Notorious B.I.G.—had he been a coverage lawyer—would have called "The More Coverage We Come Across, the More Problems We See." The "Other Insurance" Issue This first scenario is where a single-year loss implicates multiple lines of coverage. Consider the following: a general contractor (GC) faces a property damage liability claim from an owner. As a prudent insured, the GC notifies its customary first line of defense, its commercial general liability (CGL) insurer, to provide a defense. As knowledge of the claim evolves, it appears an element of pollution may be involved. The GC also places its pollution insurer on notice. Later, it's determined that the GC may have a professional liability exposure, so it tenders a claim to its professional liability insurer. Now assume that each insurer accepts coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita attorneys Gregory D. Podolak, Philip B. Wilusz and Ashley McWilliams Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com Ms. McWilliams may be contacted at amw@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Trivial Case

    November 07, 2022 —
    Construction defect cases leading to physical injury are rarely trivial, at least in the eyes of the injured party, but alas sometimes they are as the next case, Nunez v. City of Redondo Beach, 81 Cal.App.5th 749 (2022), demonstrates. The Nunez Case Monica Nunez, Vice President of Finance and Accounting at a restaurant chain and a part-time fitness instructor at a gym, tripped and fell on a public sidewalk in Redondo Beach. Ms. Nunez, who was in her forties, tripped following a group run when her back foot hit a sidewalk slab that was elevated at its highest point approximately 11/16 inches. Ms. Nunez landed on her left knee and right arm and in the process fractured her kneecap and elbow. Ms. Nunez sued the City of Redondo Beach for her injuries alleging causes of action for dangerous conditions on public property under Government Code section 835, nuisance under Government Code section 815.2, and failure to perform a mandatory duty under Government Code section 815.6. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Settlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National Union

    December 11, 2013 —
    In the last year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado found that a settlement payment from an excess insurance carrier to another primary insurance carrier precluded a finding of vertical exhaustion sufficient to trigger the primary carrier’s duty to indemnify. See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 2012 WL 6004087 (D. Colo. 2012). The Scottsdale case arose out of the construction of a 507-unit apartment complex in Arapahoe County, Colorado in which a number of defects became apparent during construction. As a result, the owner of the project sued the general contractor and/or the construction manager, seeking to recover more than $22 million for various construction deficiencies. Id. at *1. The general contractor was insured under policies issued by several carriers. Scottsdale Insurance Co. (“Scottsdale”) and National Union Fire Ins. Co. (“National Union) provided umbrella coverage, and CNA and American Zurich Ins. Co. (“Zurich”) provided primary insurance under commercial general liability policies. About five years later, the construction defect case settled for $8.5 million dollars. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Heather Anderson
    Heather Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part II

    March 28, 2018 —
    Part II of this three-part series compares and analyzes important contract sections in the AIA 201 (2007 and 2017 versions) and ConsensusDocs (2014 and 2017 versions), including Schedule/Time, Consequential Damages/LDs, Claims and Disputes/ADR. Part I covered Financial Assurances, Design Risk, Project Management and Contract Administration. Part III will cover Insurance and Indemnification and Payment. SCHEDULE/TIME Relevant Sections:
    • 2007 & 2017 A201: Section 3.10.1
    • 2014 & 2017 ConsensusDocs: Section 6.2
    AIA:
    • Section 3.10.1 of the 2007 A201 requires that the Contractor promptly after being awarded the Contract, prepare and submit a construction schedule providing for Work to be completed within the time limits required in the Contract Documents.
    • This schedule shall be revised at appropriate intervals.
    • The 2017 edition breaks down the schedule to contain date of commencement, interim milestone dates, date of substantial completion, apportionment of Work by trade or building system, and the time required for completion of each portion of the Work.
    • Under section 3.10.2 of the 2007 and 2017 versions, if the Contractor fails to provide a submittal schedule, the Contractor is not entitled to any additional compensation or a time extension based on the Owner’s or the Architect’s slow processing of submittals, regardless of how long they take.
    ConsensusDocs 200:
    • The 2017 Contract replaces the term Contract Time and instead requires a “Schedule of the Work…formatted in detailed precedence-style critical path method that (a) provides a graphic representation of all activities and events, including float values that will affect the critical path of the Work and (b) identifies dates that are critical to ensure timely and orderly completion of the Work.”
    • The Constructor must submit an initial schedule to the Owner only before, “first application for payment” and thereafter on a monthly basis. (Section 6.2.1).
    • The Owner is allowed to change the sequences provided in the schedule as long as it does not “unreasonably interfere with the Work.” (Section 6.2.2).
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Sams , Kenney & Sams and Amanda Cox, Kenney & Sams Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Michael Baker Intl. Settles Federal Pay Bias Allegations

    February 26, 2024 —
    Michael Baker International Inc. agreed to pay $122,299 in back wages as part of an agreement with the U.S. Dept. of Labor to resolve allegations that the engineer-consultant paid women in four job titles less than their male counterparts. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2023

    January 29, 2024 —
    Federal and state courts tackled many interesting insurance-related issues this past year. Perhaps no state had a more impactful year than Illinois, which held that construction defects could constitute an occurrence, that a LEG 3 “extension” attempting to preclude coverage for faulty or defective workmanship was ambiguous as a matter of law (applying Illinois law), and that ostensibly prohibitive “catch-all exclusions” can render policy language ambiguous in favor of coverage. Other courts wrestled with procedural inquiries, such as the legal duty of a broker in providing notice to an insurer or the ability of an insured to recoup its attorneys’ fees in pursuing a coverage action against its insurer. These are merely a sampling of the impactful insurance decisions rendered in 2023. Each year, we endeavor to identify cases of general interest to our clients and the broader insurance community. Specifically, we attempt to identify trends, cases of first impression, cases illustrating conflicts among the courts, or cases dealing with emerging issues. We now proudly unveil the top 10 most influential coverage decisions of 2023 and look ahead to a few cases to watch as 2024 unfolds. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Michael A. Amato, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com Mr. Amato may be contacted at MAmato@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Crisis Averted! Pennsylvania Supreme Court Joins Other Courts in Finding that Covid-19 Presents No Physical Loss or Damage for Businesses

    October 21, 2024 —
    Seeking to find some relief from business losses experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses turned to their property insurers for coverage for their lost income. A clear national trend emerged among courts deciding the issue, as most businesses could not establish coverage because they had not experienced a “direct physical loss of or damage to their covered property” as required by most policies. While this legal question may have become an afterthought for many attorneys, the question remained an open one in Pennsylvania while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered two contradictory holdings issued in the Superior Court on this topic. Compare Macmiles, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch., 286 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding there was no coverage for loss of use of a commercial property unaccompanied by any physical alteration or other physical condition that rendered the property unusable or uninhabitable) with Ungarean v. CNA, 286 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding that the policy at issue was ambiguous and therefore the policy covered the insured for COVID-related business losses). Last week, the Supreme Court considered the Superior Court’s holdings in Macmiles and Ungarean and held, at long last, that COVID-19 did not cause a direct physical loss of or damage to covered property. Reprinted courtesy of Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of