BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete 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


    White and Williams Recognized by BTI Consulting Group for Client Service

    Mortgage Battle Flares as U.K. Homebuying Loses Allure

    On Rehearing, Fifth Circuit Finds Contractual-Liability Exclusion Does Not Apply

    Can’t Get a Written Change Order? Document, Document, Document

    Carillion Fallout Affects Major Hospital Project in Liverpool

    Risk Management for Condominium Conversions

    South Carolina School District Investigated by IRS and FBI

    Parking Garage Collapse May Be Due to Construction Defect

    The Air in There: Offices, and Issues, That Seem to Make Us Stupid

    Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Recovery Practice, Partners Larry Bracken and Mike Levine Receive Band 1 Honors from Chambers USA in Georgia

    Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project.

    Policy Language Matters: New Jersey Court Bars Cleanup Coverage Under Broad Policy Terms

    The Future of High-Rise is Localized and Responsive

    Improper Means Exception and Tortious Interference Claims

    A Brief Discussion – Liquidating Agreements

    Amos Rex – A Museum for the Digital Age

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    Liability Policy’s Arbitration Endorsement Applies to Third Party Beneficiaries, Including Additional Insureds

    How Berger’s Peer Review Role Figures In Potential Bridge Collapse Settlement

    Prevent Costly Curb Box Damage Due on New Construction Projects

    Protecting and Perfecting Your Mechanics Lien when the Property Owner Files Bankruptcy

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    Brown and Caldwell Appoints Stigers as Design Chief Engineer

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Best Lawyers®

    The Benefits of Trash Talking: A Cautionary Tale of Demolition Gone Wrong

    Colorado Supreme Court Rules that Developers Retain Perpetual Control over Construction Defect Covenants

    ICC/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Green Model Code Integrates Existing Standards

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs Paid by Other Insurers

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (04/18/23) – Clean Energy, Critical Infrastructure and Commercial Concerns

    Court of Appeals Expands Application of Construction Statute of Repose

    Amazon Can be Liable in Louisiana

    Proposition 65: OEHHA to Consider Adding and Delisting Certain Chemicals of Concern

    No Damage for Delay? No Problem: Exceptions to the Enforceability of No Damage for Delay Clauses

    Caution to GCs! An Exception to Privette Can Leave You Open to Liability

    Can You Really Be Liable For a Product You Didn’t Make? In New Jersey, the Answer is Yes

    You Say Tomato, I Say Tomahto. But When it Comes to the CalOSHA Appeals Board, They Can Say it Any Way They Please

    Construction Defects not Creating Problems for Bay Bridge

    Texas Couple Claim Many Construction Defects in Home

    Economic Waste Doctrine and Construction Defects / Nonconforming Work

    Illinois Supreme Court Rules Labor Costs Not Depreciated to Determine Actual Cash Value

    Navigating Construction Contracts in the Energy Sector – Insights from Sheppard Mullin’s Webinar Series

    Ben L. Aderholt Joins Coats Rose Construction Litigation Group

    BWB&O is Recognized in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®!

    Part of the Whole: Idaho District Court Holds Economic Loss Rule Bars Tort Claims Related to Water Supply Line that was Part of Home Purchase

    Hospital Settles Lawsuit over Construction Problems

    Intellectual Property And Employment Law Best Practices: Are You Covering Your Bases In Protecting Construction-Related Trade Secrets?

    Suing the Lowest Bidder on Public Construction Projects

    Resolving Subcontractor Disputes with Pass-Through Claims and Liquidation Agreements

    Exponential Acceleration—Interview with Anders Hvid

    Preservationists Want to Save Penn Station. Yes, That Penn Station.
    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

    Some Insurers Dismissed, Others Are Not in Claims for Faulty Workmanship

    February 18, 2020 —
    The insured Developer survived a motion to dismiss by one of several carriers who were asked to defend against claims for faulty workmanship. East 111 Assoc. LLC v. RLI Ins. Co., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5331 (Oct. 4, 2019). Developers sponsored a residential condominium project and sold all units. The owners subsequently sought damages for $881,450 for alleged design and construction defects, and asserting causes of action for, among other things, breach of contract, specific performance and negligence. The underlying action settled for $350,000. Developers sought coverage from its insurers. The Developers sued the carriers for a declaratory judgment that they were entitled to a defense. Developers had a CGL policy issued by Mt. Hawley. Developers were also additional insureds in policies issued to subcontractors by James River, Admiral and Selective. The insurers moved to dismiss. 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

    Contractor Changes Contract After Signed, Then Sues Older Woman for Breaking It

    September 03, 2015 —
    Channel 13 Who TV reported, in Winterset, Iowa, Mary Gregory allegedly signed an estimate for hail damage repair to her home, and was later told by the contractor that it was a contract. When a crew showed up to her home to perform the work, she turned them away. Then, Gregory received a letter from an attorney demanding eight thousand dollars for breach of contract. It turns out that the contractor altered the estimate Gregory signed and submitted it to the insurance company. According to Who TV, the altered estimate “contained work that Gregory says she didn’t authorize and a price tag of $32,134.” Jim Nelle, the contractor, admitted that he added to the contract after it was signed. He claims he was only trying to help her. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California’s High Speed Rail Project. Are We Done With the Drama?

    October 22, 2014 —
    Proponents of California’s high-speed rail project cleared a major hurdle this past week when the California Supreme Court declined to review a California Court of Appeals ruling which held that the state’s funding plan did not violate Proposition 1A, the voter-approved initiative passed in 2008, which provided initial funding for the project. For those like me who have been following the fits and starts of California’s high-speed rail project, it may be hard to remember how it all got started, and how we got to where we are. California's High-Speed Rail Project California’s high-speed rail project involves the construction of a high-speed passenger rail system running from Northern California to Southern California. The $68 billion system, expected to begin operation in 2029, will initially run from San Francisco to the Los Angeles basin in under 3 hours with train speeds capable of over 200 miles per hour. The system will eventually extend from Sacramento to San Diego covering a distance of approximately 800 miles with up to 24 stations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

    PAGA Right of Action Not Applicable to Construction Workers Under Collective Bargaining Agreement

    December 26, 2022 —
    California is one of the most employee-friendly states in the country. From strict hiring laws (don’t think about asking about an applicant’s criminal, credit or even salary history), to generous benefits (minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest breaks, family medical leave, etc.) and strict anti-harassment laws (if you have to think about it, even for a second, don’t do it), to protections for terminated workers (whistle blower protections, WARN notices, non-compete restrictions), California workers enjoy protections that many others do not. This includes PAGA, or the Private Attorneys General Act, which authorizes aggrieved employees to file lawsuits against their employers to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State of California for Labor Code violations. In general, the right of an employee to file a PAGA action cannot be waived by contract. However, Labor Code section 2699.6 which was enacted in 2018 provides an exception for construction workers who perform work under certain collective bargaining agreements. In the next case, Oswald v. Murray Plumbing and heating Corporation, 82 Cal.App.5th 938 (2022), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether collective bargaining agreement with a retroactive date, signed after an employee was terminated, precluded an employee from bringing a PAGA action. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Breaking with Tradition, The Current NLRB is on a Rulemaking Tear: Election Procedures, Recognition Bar, and 9(a) Collective Bargaining Relationships

    September 09, 2019 —
    In its 84-year history, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB, Board or Agency) has promulgated a very small number of rules pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, relying, instead, on individualized adjudications to establish the Board’s legislative policies. However, breaking with that long tradition, the current Board now appears to be on the verge of a formal rulemaking jag for on May 22, the Board released its “Unified Agenda” of anticipated regulatory actions which, in addition to proceeding with rulemaking regarding joint employer standards, announced the Board’s intention to consider formal rulemaking in a number of critical areas. Consistent with that wide-ranging Agenda, on August 12, the Board published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) over the objection of Democratic appointee, Lauren McFerran, that would amend the Agency’s rules and regulations governing the filing and processing of election petitions in three very important ways. This NPRM, therefore, deserves attention. The first possible amendment will modify the Board’s administrative election blocking charge practice by establishing a regulation-based vote and impound procedure to be used when a party, typically a union facing possible decertification, files an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge and, based thereon, seeks to block the holding of an election. The second possible amendment will modify the Board’s current recognition bar case law by codifying prior Board case doctrine and creating a regulation-based requirement of notice of voluntary recognition to affected employees and a 45-day open period within which affected employees may call for an election before that voluntary recognition will be allowed to operate as a bar to employees raising later questions concerning the union’s representative status (QCR). Reprinted courtesy of Sheppard Mullin attorneys Keahn Morris, John Bolesta and James Hays Mr. Morris may be contacted at kmorris@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Bolesta may be contacted at jbolesta@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Hays may be contacted at jhays@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Coverage For Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    September 14, 2017 —
    The federal district court found there was no coverage for alleged defects caused by the insured homebuilder. Canal Indem. Co. v. Carbin, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126662 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 10, 2017). Carbin Construction filed suit against Aaron and Sherry Ford, asserting mechanic's and materialman's liens, and seeking sums allegedly due for work performed under a construction contract. The Fords filed a counterclaim, alleging that over a year had passed since Carbin was to complete construction, and that Carbin refused to do any further work on the house until he was paid an additional $11,771.43. The Fords further contended that Carbin had walked off the job after receiving 96.6 percent of the money owed under the contract although only 88 percent of the construction work had been completed. Carbin tendered the counterclaim to Canal. Canal then filed suit seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend. 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

    Insurer Awarded Summary Judgment on Collapse Claim

    January 06, 2020 —
    The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the insurer that there was no coverage for a collapse under the policy. S.O. Beach Corp. v. Great Am. Ins. Co.,2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32569 (11th Cir. Oct. 31, 2019). S.O. Beach Corporation and Larios on the Beach, Inc ("Larios") owned a building in Miami Beach. Sometime between march 4, 2012 and April 10, 2013, Larios discovered that parts of the first three floors of its building had caved in to varying degrees. The primary cause of the collapse was a wooden support beam that had severely rotted. Larios found a broken pipe that was gushing water onto the beam, causing deterioration. Larios was forced to evacuate the building until the damage was repaired. Larios submitted a claim under its all-risk policy with Great American. The policy required that a collapse an "abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building" to be covered. Before a coverage decision was made, Larios sued for breach of contract. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted Great American's motion and denied Larios' motion. 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

    Insured's Commercial Property Policy Deemed Excess Over Unobtained Flood Policy

    June 10, 2019 —
    The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, deciding that there was no breach of the policy for failure to pay for flood damage when the insured failed to obtain a policy under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). 570 Smith St. Realty Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co. Inc., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1773 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. April 4, 2019). The insured's property in Brooklyn was insured by Seneca. Included in the policy was flood coverage in the amount of $1 million with a $25,000 deductible. While the policy was in effect, Hurricane Sandy hit, damaging the property. Plaintiffs timely filed a claim seeking reimbursement of up to policy limits. Seneca paid only $35,883 and later made an additional payment of $33,015. The insured sued for, among other things, breach of the policy for failure to properly indemnify for the losses. Seneca moved for partial summary judgment dismissing the breach of policy claims. Seneca pointed out that the "Other Insurance" provision in the Flood Coverage Endorsement of the policy stated that if the loss was eligible to be covered under a NFIP policy, but there was no such policy in effect, the insurer would only pay for the amount of loss in excess of the maximum limit payable for flood damage under the policy. The maximum NFIP coverage was $500,000. The insured's loss caused by flood was less than $500,000. 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