BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut 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


    Safety Accusations Fly in Dispute Between New York Developer and Contractor

    NEW DEFECT WARRANTY LAWS – Now Applicable to Condominiums and HOAs transitioning from Developer to Homeowner Control. Is Your Community Aware of its Rights Under the New Laws?

    Despite Feds' Raised Bar, 2.8B Massachusetts Offshore Wind Project Presses On

    “Slow and Steady Doesn’t Always Win the Race” – Applicability of a Statute of Repose on Indemnity/Contribution Claims in New Hampshire

    Seyfarth Shaw’s Construction Group Receives Top Tier Recognition from Legal 500

    “But it’s 2021!” Service of Motion to Vacate Via Email Found Insufficient by the Eleventh Circuit

    Potential Coverage Issues Implicated by the Champlain Towers Collapse

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms Eight-Year Limit on Construction Defect Lawsuits

    New York Court Holds Radioactive Materials Exclusion Precludes E&O Coverage for Negligent Phase I Report

    Endorsement to Insurance Policy Controls

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (08/15/23) – Manufacturing Soars with CHIPS Act, New Threats to U.S. Infrastructure and AI Innovation for One Company

    The Increasing Trend of Caps in Construction Contracts and Negotiating Them

    Hawaii Supreme Court Reaffirms an "Accident" Includes Reckless Conduct, Finds Green House Gases are Pollutants

    BHA Expands Construction Experts Group

    The “Up” House is “Up” for Sale

    Couple Sues for Construction Defects in Manufactured Home

    Recession Graduates’ Six-Year Gap in Homeownership

    EEOC Issues Anti-Harassment Guidance To Construction-Industry Employers

    Specified Or Designated Operations Endorsement – Limitation of Insurance Coverage

    Federal Government May Go to Different Green Building Standard

    Why 8 Out of 9 Californians Don't Buy Earthquake Insurance

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

    U.S. Home Lending Set to Bounce Back in 2015 After Slump

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

    Insurer’s Duty to Indemnify Not Ripe Until Underlying Lawsuit Against Insured Resolved

    Parol Evidence can be Used to Defeat Fraudulent Lien

    Tariffs, Supply Snarls Spur Search for Factories Closer to U.S.

    Rooftop Owners Sue Cubs Consultant for Alleged False Statements

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Are You Taking Full Advantage of Available Reimbursements for Assisting Injured Workers?

    Don’t Waive Your Right to Arbitrate (Unless You Want To!)

    In Construction Your Contract May Not Always Preclude a Negligence Claim

    Contractor Convicted of Additional Fraud

    New York’s Highest Court Weighs in on N.Y. Labor Law

    Thieves Stole Backhoe for Use in Bank Heist

    China Home Glut May Worsen as Developers Avoid Price Drop

    Construction Slow to Begin in Superstorm Sandy Cases

    Hawaii Supreme Court Bars Insurers from Billing Policyholders for Uncovered Defense Costs

    Following Pennsylvania Trend, Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Construction Defect

    East Coast Evaluates Damage After Fast-Moving 'Bomb Cyclone'

    Rhode Island Examines a Property Owner’s Intended Beneficiary Status and the Economic Loss Doctrine in the Context of a Construction Contract

    Builders Arrested after Building Collapses in India

    Evaluating Construction Trends From 2023 and Forecasting For 2024

    Understanding the Real Estate and Tax Implications of Florida's Buyer Ban Law

    Updates to AIA Contract Applications

    The Contract Disputes Act: What Every Federal Government Contractor Should Know

    Traub Lieberman Chair Emeritus Awarded the 2022 Vince Donohue Award by the International Association of Claim Professionals

    The Unpost, Post: Dynamex and the Construction Indianapolis

    Property Owner’s Defense Goes Up in Smoke in Careless Smoking Case

    How BIM Can Serve Building Owners
    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

    Alleged Serious Defects at Hanford Nuclear Waste Treatment Plant

    August 26, 2015 —
    According to the Los Angeles Times, “A team of nuclear waste experts has found hundreds of serious defects at an Energy Department plant designed to turn millions of gallons of highly radioactive sludge into more stable solid glass at the former weapons facility in Hanford, Wash.” The report from 2014 was leaked, and stated that the “partially built facility is riddled with 362 ‘significant design vulnerabilities’ that could affect safety and future operations.” Thirty-seven experts led by two senior managers created the report. The Los Angeles Times reported that the report findings “are significant because the plant is part of the Energy Department’s 2013 initiative to fix earlier problems that stalled construction of other parts of the treatment system at Hanford, the site of the nation’s worst radioactive contamination.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    With No Evidence of COVID-19 Being Present, DC Trial Court Finds No Claim for Business Interruption

    September 28, 2020 —
    A D.C. Superior Court rejected a business interruption claim due to closures related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Rose's 1, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exchange, Civil Case No 2020 CA 002424 B (Order dated Aug. 8, 2020). The decision is here. Plaintiffs owned a number of restaurants in the District of Coiumbia. Plaintiffs had commercial property coverage in a policy issued by Erie. The policy provided coverage for loss of income sustained due to interruption of business resulting directly from "loss or damage" to the insured property. DC Mayor Bowser issued a series of orders in March 2020 which closed all non-essential businesses, including plaintiffs' restaurants. Plaintiffs filed claims with Erie. When coverage was denied, plaintiffs filed suit. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The dispute centered on whether the closure of the restaurants due to the mayor's orders constituted a "direct physical loss" under the policy. Plaintiffs argued that the loss of use of the restaurants was "direct" because the closures were the direct result of the mayor's orders without intervening action. The court reasoned, however, that the orders were governmental edicts that commanded individuals and businesses to take certain actions. Standing alone and absent intervening actions by individuals and businesses, the orders did not effect any direct changes to the properties. 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

    General Contractor Gets Fired [Upon] for Subcontractor’s Failure to Hire Apprentices

    September 23, 2024 —
    As most public works contractors know, Labor Code section 1777.5 requires the hiring of apprentices on public works projects and, under Labor Code section 1777.7, violations are subject to civil penalties of up $100/day and up to $300/day days for repeated violations within a three-year period. In Lusardi Construction Co. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations, 102 Cal.App.5th (2024), a prime contractor learned the hard way that not only could it be penalized for its failure to hire apprentices but that it could also be liable for its subcontractor’s failure to hire apprentices. Forewarned is to be forearmed. The Lusardi Construction Case In 2014, general contractor Lusardi Construction Company hired subcontractor Pro Works Contracting to perform iron reinforcing work on a public works project owned by the San Marcos Unified School District. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Navigating the Hurdles of Florida Construction Defect Lawsuits

    April 03, 2013 —
    The Florida law firm of Williams Law Association reminds readers that under the law, homeowners “cannot immediately file a lawsuit against their contractor if they subsequently discover construction defects.” The contractor must first have a chance to fix the defect. Further, there is a waiting period between informing the contractor and actually filing the lawsuit. For individual homeowners, that wait is 60 days, but for associations of more than 20 parcels, it’s 120 days. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Affirmed

    June 22, 2016 —
    Today, in a precedential opinion, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of a complaint against my client that alleged that a multi-family building was constructed in violation of the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) design and accessibility requirements for disabled persons. A copy of the Opinion can be found here ( Opinion of 3rd Circuit . ) An adverse decision would have meant that my client could have been exposed to making several million dollars in alterations to its building. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Supplemental Conditions
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    Consolidated Case With Covered and Uncovered Allegations Triggers Duty to Defend

    May 20, 2015 —
    The Illinois Court of Appeals held that the insurer had a duty to defend a consolidated case that included one complaint alleging intentional acts and another complaint alleging negligence. Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass'n v. Neumann, 2015 Il. App. 140026 (Ill. Ct. App. March 24, 2015, reh'g denied March 24, 2015). Neumann allegedly hit Bitner with his automobile as Bitner, a police offier, was directing traffic. Bitner sued Neumann, alleging intentional assault and intentional battery. Farmers rejected Neumann's tender because the policy did not cover intentional acts. Farmers filed for a declaratory judgment. In his answer, Neumann included an affidavit stating that he did not intend to strike or cause bodily harm to Bitner. The trial court granted the motion to strike the affidavit. 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

    Los Angeles Warehousing Mecca Halts Expansion Just as Needs Soar

    September 05, 2022 —
    Communities in the Inland Empire, the US’s logistics mecca east of Los Angeles, are suspending new warehousing projects to examine the impact from decades of pollution -- putting the industry under pressure when it’s needed most. This week, the city council for Pomona is set to vote on extending a temporary halt on industrial developments to study the environmental impact, while the nearby city of Norco will decide whether to establish a 45-day moratorium. The actions follow similar freezes by a handful of Southern California cities like Riverside, Colton, Chino and Redlands over the past several years. Meanwhile, a state-level bill -- which is a long-shot to pass in the legislature but gives a reading of the mood -- proposes banning large industrial construction within 1,000 feet of non-industrial areas such as schools, homes and playgrounds in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, an area that spans 27,000 square miles. Reprinted courtesy of Ngai Yeung, Bloomberg and Augusta Saraiva, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Cherokee Nation Wins Summary Judgment in COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

    February 01, 2021 —
    In a resounding victory for policyholders, an Oklahoma state court granted partial summary judgment for the Cherokee Nation in its COVID-19 business interruption claim. The Cherokee Nation is seeking coverage for losses caused by the pandemic—specifically, the inability to use numerous tribal businesses and services for their intended purpose. Based on the “all risks” nature of the policy and the fortuitous nature of its loss, the Cherokee Nation sought a partial summary judgment ruling that the policies afford business interruption coverage for COVID-19-related losses. The policy provided coverage for “all risk of direct physical loss or damage,” which the Cherokee Nation contended was triggered when the property was “rendered unusable for its intended purpose.” In support of this view, and consistent with established insurance policy interpretation principles, such as providing meaning to every term and reading the policy as a whole, the Cherokee Nation argued that a distinction must exist between “physical loss” and “physical damage.” This distinction demands an interpretation supporting the “intended purpose” reading of the policy language. Thus, the physical presence of COVID-19 depriving the Cherokee Nation of the use of covered property for its intended purpose triggered a covered loss. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Matt Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of