BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping 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 hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractor
    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


    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TX

    Court Says KBR Construction Costs in Iraq were Unreasonable

    Construction Group Seeks Defense Coverage for Hard Rock Stadium Claims

    No Coverage Under Exclusions For Wind and Water Damage

    Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State's Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements

    Condos Down in Denver Due to Construction Defect Litigation

    Water Leak Covered for First Thirteen Days

    Builders Arrested after Building Collapses in India

    Car Crashes Through Restaurant Window. Result: Lesson in the History of Additional Insured Coverage

    EEOC Suit Alleges Site Managers Bullied Black Workers on NY Project

    Flint Water Crisis and America’s Clean Water Access Failings

    Tokyo Building Flaws May Open Pandora's Box for Asahi Kasei

    Firm Announces Remediation of Defective Drywall

    Courthouse Reporter Series - How to Avoid Having Your COVID-19 Expert Stricken

    Boston Construction Bands With Health Care to Fight COVID-19

    OSHA Finalizes PPE Fitting Requirement for Construction Workers

    New York Establishes a Registration Requirement for Contractors and Subcontractors Performing Public Works and Covered Private Projects

    The ‘Sole Option’ Arbitration Provision in Construction Contracts

    Insurer Could Not Rely on Extrinsic Evidence to Circumvent Its Duty to Defend

    Client Alert: Catch Me If You Can – Giorgio Is No Gingerbread Man

    NY Estimating Consultant Settles $3.1M Government Project Fraud Case

    Illinois Couple Files Suit Against Home Builder

    Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes

    Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

    DOE Abruptly Cancels $13B Cleanup Award to BWXT-Fluor Team

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

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

    ‘Hallelujah,’ House Finally Approves $1T Infrastructure Funding Package

    Second Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of NY’s Zero Emissions Credit Program

    Florida Adopts Less Stringent Summary Judgment Standard

    Tennessee Court of Appeals Holds Defendant Has the Burden of Offering Alternative Measure of Damages to Prove that Plaintiff’s Measure of Damages is Unreasonable

    Contractors Board May Discipline Over Workers’ Comp Reporting

    Federal Court Reiterates Broad Duty to Defend in Additional Insured Cases

    Condo Association Settles with Pulte Homes over Construction Defect Claims

    Standard For Evaluating Delay – Directly from An Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeal’s Opinion

    A New Lawsuit Might Change the Real Estate Industry Forever

    Mass Timber Reduces Construction’s Carbon Footprint, But Introduces New Risk Scenarios

    Hawaii Federal District Rejects Another Construction Defect Claim

    Tejon Ranch Co. Announces Settlement of Litigation Related to the Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement

    Structure of Champlain Towers North Appears Healthy

    The Enforceability of “Pay-If-Paid” Provisions Affirmed in New Jersey

    Virginia General Assembly Helps Construction Contractors

    Tiny Houses Big With U.S. Owners Seeking Economic Freedom

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2022 “Atlanta 500” List

    Consequential Damages Can Be Recovered Against Insurer In Breach Of Contract

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Will Not Address Trigger for DEP Environmental Cleanup Action at This Time

    A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

    Construction Law- Where Pragmatism and Law Collide

    Life After McMillin: Do Negligence and Strict Liability Causes of Action for Construction Defects Still Exist?

    From the Ground Up
    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

    SDNY Vacates Arbitration Award for Party-Arbitrator’s Nondisclosures

    April 13, 2017 —
    The US District Court for the Southern District of New York recently vacated an arbitration award finding that a party-appointed arbitrator’s undisclosed relationship with the party appointing him was significant enough to demonstrate evident partiality. Certain Underwriting Members at Lloyd’s of London, et. al. v. Ins. Companies of America, Inc., Nos. 16-cv-232 and 16-cv-374 (S.D.N.Y. March 31, 2017). In the arbitration, the panel was asked to determine whether the reinsurance contracts, covering workers’ compensation policies, only applied when multiple claimants were injured as the result of the same loss occurrence. After a three-day hearing, the arbitration panel issued an award in favor of the ceding company, Insurance Companies of America (ICA). After the award was issued, Lloyd’s discovered that ICA’s arbitrator had significant undisclosed relationships with principals at ICA and moved to vacate the award in federal court. Reprinted courtesy of Justin K. Fortescue, White and Williams LLP and Ciaran B. Way, White and Williams LLP Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Way may be contacted at wayc@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    ASCE Statement on National Dam Safety Awareness Day - May 31

    June 06, 2022 —
    Washington, DC. – Nationwide, more than 92,000 dams protect communities across the country, providing numerous services including irrigation, water conservation, and flood protection. Advocating for the safety, robustness, and sustainability of our nation's dams is a top priority for ASCE as we recognize May 31 as National Dam Safety Awareness Day. National Dam Safety Awareness Day is observed in remembrance of the "Johnstown Flood" on May 31, 1889. Failures of the South Fork Dam near Johnstown, PA, resulted in the death of more than 2,200 people. This tragedy serves as an illustration of the critical importance of effectively maintaining and managing our nation's dams and ensuring that adequate dam safety measures remain in place to avoid these preventable tragedies. ASCE's 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure gave the nation's dams a "D" grade. Of the nation's 92,000 dams, more than 15,000 are classified as having "high hazard potential", meaning that dam failure would result in the loss of life. While increased state investment in dam safety programs has allowed for better assessment of dams and the ability to identify rehabilitation needs as well as potential hazards, increased federal investment is still needed to ensure the safety of dams nationwide. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York City Dept. of Buildings Explores Drones for Facade Inspections

    December 13, 2021 —
    Drones have only seen limited use in New York City for construction documentation and facade inspections due to restrictive local ordinances. But that may be changing with the release of a new report from the New York City Dept. of Buildings, which sees future potential for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), or drones, to be used in building facade inspections. Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubenstein may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    #12 CDJ Topic: Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015)

    December 30, 2015 —
    In his article, “Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered,” attorney Tred R. Eyerly analyzed the Am. Home Assur. Co. case that involved a dispute between a developer and a subcontractor over fractured tiles: “On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court first found that the fracturing of the stone floor tiles caused by the subcontractor's defective installation was the result of an 'occurrence.' There was no evidence that the subcontractor knew that its tile installation work was defective before the tiles fractured. Instead, the fracturing was an unexpected consequence of the defective installation.” Everly continues, “But there was no ‘property damage.’ For the subcontractor to prevail, the defective installation work had to be considered separate and distinct from the physical manifestation of the defective work. Under California law, coverage resulted from construction defects that involved physical injuries to other parts of the construction project.” Everly concludes, “Because there was no genuine issues of material fact as to the potential for coverage, there was no duty to defend.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Cannot Abandon Defense Agreement on Underlying Asbestos Claims Against Insured

    June 12, 2023 —
    The court found that the insurer continued to be bound by a defense agreement entered with the insured who merged with another company. Continental Ins. Co. v. Neles-Jamesbury, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52521 (D. Mass. March 28, 2023). In 1990, Neles-Jamesbury became the sucessor by merger to the liabilities of Jamesbury Corp. and Neles, Inc. The companies were both in the business of manufacturing and selling valves. Continental issued two primary CGL policies to Neles, Inc. from 1986 to 1988. After the merger, Neles-Jamesbury was involved in numerous lawsuits that alleged bodily injury from asbestos exposure. Due to the continuing question of whether the policies created duties for Continental, the parties entered into a 2007 Cost Sharing Agreement, which served to clarify and define their respective obligations and coverage in the lawsuits. The agreement noted that Continental wanted to avoid the expense and uncertainties of litigation over defense obligations. 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

    ASCE Statement on Hurricane Milton and Environmental Threats

    October 15, 2024 —
    WASHINGTON, DC. – On the heels of the tragic damage caused by Hurricane Helene throughout the Southeast, Floridians were struck by another major hurricane, Milton, less than two weeks later. Our hearts go out to those impacted again by this storm through property damage, lack of water access, power outages, or worse, loss of life, all before getting a chance to recover from Helene. Civil engineers are dedicated to protecting the public with projects that can lessen the impacts of these storms, and we are eager to help communities rebuild as quickly as possible following events like Milton and Helene. Although we do not yet know the full scope of destruction caused by Hurricane Milton, severe weather, including compound flooding events, are increasing regularly and pose a great risk to our safety and economic vitality. While so many eyes are fixated on hurricanes impacting the Southeast, wildfires are burning across several western states, including the Elk Fire in Wyoming, the largest wildfire the Bighorn National Forest has experienced in more than a century, now spanning over 75,000 acres as the region is experiencing unusually hot and dry weather and strong winds that are helping this fire to spread rapidly. The climate impacts we are accustomed to – wildfires in the West and hurricanes in the Southeast – are getting stronger, and now environmental challenges are occurring in areas we wouldn't suspect, such as Hurricane Helene striking mountain communities in Western North Carolina that have been labeled as "climate safe-havens," and Texas dealing with annual winter storms. ASCE is a leader in codes and standards development and has created an easy-to-understand toolkit for legislators and the public to learn the benefits of these up-to-date standards and determine when and how to adopt them, making our built environment more resilient to natural catastrophes. ASCE's flagship standard, ASCE/SEI 7-22, recently underwent the most significant update to its flooding chapter to ensure structures following this standard are prepared for 500-year flood events. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    MTA’S New Debarment Powers Pose an Existential Risk

    July 15, 2019 —
    The normal project and contractual risks faced by contractors, consultants and suppliers to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority are considerable. A new law and regulations mandating that the MTA debar contractors, consultants and suppliers for unexcused schedule and cost overruns creates a new and unfair existential risk. The new law, Public Authorities Law Section 1279-h, slipped into the New York State budget bill and passed without public comment, was enacted on April 12, 2019. Implementing regulations were issued on June 5, 2019, and mandate that the MTA debar contractors (defined to include consultants, vendors and suppliers) if they: (1) fail to achieve substantial completion of their contractual obligations within 10% of the adjusted contract time; or (2) present claims for additional compensation that are denied in an amount that exceeds the total adjusted contract amount by 10% or more.[1] To say that your business and your livelihood are at risk is not an overstatement. The MTA umbrella includes the New York City Transit Authority, MTA Capital Construction, Bridges & Tunnels, Long Island Railroad and Metro North, among others. A debarment by one of these authorities will lead to a debarment by all of them, and then to a debarment by all New York State agencies and authorities,[2] and possibly debarment across state lines. Public and major private owners, as part of their RFP and procurement processes, routinely inquire regarding a bidding contractor’s debarment history. The risk is to new contracts and, because the MTA has decided to give retroactive effect to the law and regulations, to contracts that are already ongoing (even though these risks could not have been considered, priced or agreed to by contractors or their sureties). Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C. attorneys Steven M. Charney, Gregory H. Chertoff and Paul Monte Mr. Charney may be contacted at scharney@pecklaw.com Mr. Chertoff may be contacted at gchertoff@pecklaw.com Mr. Monte may be contacted at pmonte@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

    July 30, 2019 —
    These days in construction, and other pursuits, teaming agreements have become a great method for large and small contractors to work together to take advantage of various contract and job requirements from minority participation to veteran ownership. With the proliferation of these agreements, parties must be careful in how they draft the terms of these agreements. Without proper drafting, the parties risk unenforceability of the teaming agreement in the evewnt of a dispute. One potential pitfall in drafting is an “agreement to agree” or an agreement to negotiate a separate contract in the future. This type of pitfall was illustrated in the case of InDyne Inc. v. Beacon Occupational Health & Safety Services Inc. out of the Eastern District of Virginia. In this case, InDyne and Beacon entered into a teaming agreement that provided that InDyne as Prime would seek to use Beacon, the Sub, in the event that InDyne was awarded a contract using Beacon’s numbers. The teaming agreement further provided:
    The agreement shall remain in effect until the first of the following shall occur: … (g) inability of the Prime and the Sub, after negotiating in good faith, to reach agreement on the terms of a subcontract offered by the Prime, in accordance with this agreement.
    InDyne was subsequently awarded a contract with the Air Force and shortly thereafter sent a subcontract to Beacon and requested Beacon’s “best and final” pricing. Beacon protested by letter stating that it was only required to act consistently with its original bid pricing. Beacon then returned the subcontract with the original bid pricing and accepting all but a termination for convenience provision. Shortly thereafter, InDyne informed Beacon that InDyne had awarded the subcontract to one of Beacon’s competitors. Beacon of course sued and argued that the teaming agreement required that InDyne award the subcontract to Beacon. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com