BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut window 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


    Three lawyers from Haight were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition

    Skilled Labor Shortage Implications for Construction Companies

    Oracle Sues Procore, Claims Theft of Trade Secrets for ERP Integration

    Texas Jury Finds Presence of SARS-CoV-2 Virus Causes “Physical Loss or Damage” to Property, Awards Over $48 Million to Baylor College of Medicine

    Damage Control: Major Rebuilds After Major Weather Events

    Home Sales Going to Investors in Daytona Beach Area

    Choice of Laws Test Mandates Application of California’s Continuous and Progressive Trigger of Coverage to Asbestos Claims

    The Sky is Falling! – Or is it? Impacting Lives through Addressing the Fear of Environmental Liabilities

    How Does Weather Impact a Foundation?

    Fundamental Fairness Trumps Contract Language

    Tort Claims Against an Alter Ego May Be Considered an Action “On a Contract” for the Purposes of an Attorneys’ Fees Award under California Civil Code section 1717

    Climate Change a Factor in 'Unprecedented' South Asia Floods

    Coronavirus and Contract Obligations

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    Insurance and Your Roof

    Suspend the Work, but Don’t Get Fired

    White House Hopefuls Make Pitches to Construction Unions

    Subcontractors Aren’t Helpless

    Building Resiliency: Withstanding Wildfires and Other Natural Disasters

    Contractual Waiver of Consequential Damages

    Tenth Circuit Reverses District Court's Ruling that Contractor Entitled to a Defense

    “Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit

    Colorado Nearly Triples Damages Caps for Cases Filed in 2025, Allows Siblings to File Wrongful Death Claims

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

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Best Practices for Productive Rule 26(f) Conferences on Discovery Plans

    State of Texas’ Claims Time Barred by 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    Duke Energy Appeals N.C. Order to Excavate Nine Coal Ash Pits

    Drastic Rebuild Resurrects Graves' Landmark Portland Building

    Trends in Project Delivery Methods in Construction

    CDJ’s #6 Topic of the Year: Does Colorado Need Construction Defect Legislation to Spur Affordable Home Development?

    Mortar Insufficient to Insure Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case

    Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back

    Insurers Get “Floored” by Court of Appeals Regarding the Presumptive Measure of Damages in Consent Judgments

    “Bound by the Bond”

    A Vision and Strategy for the Adoption of Open International Standards

    EEOC Builds on Best Practice Guidance Regarding Harassment Within the Construction Industry

    SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages

    A Court-Side Seat: Guam’s CERCLA Claim Allowed, a “Roundup” Verdict Upheld, and Judicial Process Privilege Lost

    Sochi Construction Unlikely to be Completed by End of Olympic Games

    Investigation Continues on Children Drowning at Construction Site

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

    Pinterest Nixes Big San Francisco Lease Deal in Covid Scaleback

    The New Jersey Theme Park Where Kids’ Backhoe Dreams Come True

    Risk Protection: Force Majeure Agreements Take on Renewed Relevance

    Five Construction Payment Issues—and Solutions

    Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

    Beware of Design Pitfalls In Unfamiliar Territory

    Evaluating Smart Home Technology: It’s About More Than the Bottom Line

    Introducing Nomos LLP!
    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

    Texas Supreme Court Cements Exception to “Eight-Corners” Rule Through Two Recent Rulings

    March 06, 2022 —
    The Texas “eight corners” rule precludes insurers from disclaiming a defense obligation based on facts not alleged in the underlying pleadings. Texas federal and appellate courts have been issuing rulings addressing exceptions to the eight corners rule and recently sought guidance from the Texas Supreme Court on whether Texas law recognizes such exceptions to the “eight corners” rule. The Texas Supreme Court has now spoken on the issue. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. BITCO Gen. Ins. Corp., 65 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 440 (2022). In Monroe, David Jones contracted with 5D Drilling & Pump Services in the summer of 2014 to drill a 3,600-foot commercial irrigation well on his farmland. In 2016, Jones sued 5D for breach of contract and negligence relating to 5D’s drilling operations on Jones’s property. Jones’s pleading was silent as to when the damage flowing from 5D’s alleged acts of misconduct occurred. BITCO and Monroe stipulated that 5D’s drill struck a bore hole during 5D’s drilling operations in or around November 2014. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

    Buffett Says ‘No-Brainer’ to Get a Mortgage to Short Rates

    October 08, 2014 —
    Warren Buffett, the billionaire chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A), said he was puzzled by the sluggish rebound in U.S. home construction amid near record-low interest rates and a broader recovery in the economy. “You would think that people would be lining up now to get mortgages to buy a home,” Buffett said today at a conference hosted by Fortune magazine in Laguna Niguel, California. “It’s a good way to go short the dollar, short interest rates. It is a no-brainer. But so far home construction pickup has been slower than I had anticipated.” Housing starts slumped in August from the highest level in almost seven years to a 956,000 annualized rate, Commerce Department data show. Slow wage growth and tighter lending standards have kept some would-be borrowers from buying a home. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Noah Buhayar, Bloomberg
    Mr. Buhayar may be contacted at nbuhayar@bloomberg.net

    Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: LESLIE KING O'NEAL

    January 29, 2024 —
    Company: JAMS Office Location: Orlando, FL Email: lkoneal1117@gmail.com Website: https://www.jamsadr.com/oneal/ Law School: University of Florida, J.D. (1977) Types of ADR services offered: Mediation, arbitration, neutral evaluation Geographic area served: Nationwide Q: Describe the path you took to becoming an ADR neutral. A: Florida was one of the first states to allow judges to send civil cases to mediation. When I was an advocate, nearly all my cases went to mediation at least once—sometimes more than once! I became a firm believer in the value of mediation and other ADR methods. I became a Florida certified circuit court mediator in 2021 and I joined JAMS in 2022, after retiring as in-house counsel with Brasfield & Gorrie, a large commercial general contractor. I am also an adjunct professor at Pepperdine Law School, teaching arbitration theory and practice in its master of dispute resolution and master of laws programs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLP
    Ms. Downs may be contacted at mdowns@lauriebrennan.com

    Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    December 09, 2019 —
    Recently, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that structural damages to the foundation of an insured’s home came within the earth movement exclusion in a homeowner’s policy, notwithstanding a provision in the policy which provided coverage for water damage resulting “from accidental discharge or overflow of water … from within … [p]lumbing, heating, air condition or household appliance.” In Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 264 So. 3d 737 (Miss. 2019), the appellee, Smith, filed a lawsuit against her homeowner's insurance company, Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (“Farm Bureau”) for its refusal to pay for repairs to the foundation of Smith’s home. Smith alleged that the refusal to pay for repairs amounted to breach of contract and asserted claims for bad faith and tortious breach of contract. In response, Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of the policy’s earth-movement exclusion, which provided that Farm Bureau “did not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by…Earth Movement…[which] means…[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting... caused by or resulting from human or animal forces.” Smith filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the basis that the earth-movement exclusion did not preclude coverage because her insurance policy also contained a clause expressly covering water damage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony Hatzilabrou, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Hatzilabrou may be contacted at thatzilabrou@tlsslaw.com

    Insurer Must Defend Additional Insured Though Its Insured is a Non-Party

    November 18, 2019 —
    The plaintiff insurer's motion for partial summary judgment seeking an order that defendant insurer was obligated to defend a non-party as an additional insured was granted. Am Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Burlington Ins. Co., 2019 N. Y. Misc. LEXIS 4145 (N. Y. Sup. Ct. July 25, 2019). Quality Building Construction, LLC was the contractor hired to work on exterior facade of a building owned by Central Park West Corporation. The underlying complaint alleged that Quality caused plastic spacers and pedestals used for the penthouse terrace to fall down the roof drain riser. A clog and rainwater backup resulted in water damage to apartment 8A. The resulting damage was allegedly due to the clogged roof drain riser. Quality subcontracted the work to Mega State, Inc. The subcontract required Mega to indemnify and hold Quality harmless against claims in connection with Mega's work, as well as name Quality as an additional insured on a primary, non-contributory bases under Mega's CGL policy. Burlington issued a policy to Mega naming Quality as an additional insured. American Empire issued a CGL policy to Quality. Quality was sued in the underlying action, but Mega was not. American Empire tendered a demand for coverage to Mega and Burlington, relying on the agreement between Quality and Mega. Burlington responded that Mega was not liable for the alleged damages. American Empire sued Burlington. Subsequently, Burlington accepted the tender to defend Quality in the underlying action, and reserved rights as to whether Burlington's policy was primary and on the question of indemnification. American Empire agreed to withdraw its suit if Burlington would modify its reservation of rights. Burlington refused. 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

    Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions: Courts May Not Consider Tenant’s Hardship

    December 08, 2016 —
    If you own property and a tenant wrongfully refuses to vacate the premises (for example when the lease expires or after proper written notice of termination), you may have a quick and easy remedy to have the tenant removed. Arizona’s forcible entry and detainer (FED) statute allows a person to bring a speedy, summary action to obtain an order that the person must leave the property immediately. See A.R.S. § 12-1171 – 1183. To allow for quick resolution, the only question a court may consider in a FED action is who has the right of possession of the property. A.R.S. § 12-1177(A) (“On the trial of an action of forcible entry or forcible detainer, the only issue shall be the right of actual possession and the merits of title shall not be inquired into.”). Counterclaims and cross-claims are not permitted in a FED action, and must be addressed in a separate civil action between the parties. If factual questions bear on the right of possession, they will also need to be resolved in a regular civil action. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Erica Stutman, Snell & Wilmer
    Ms. Stutman may be contacted at estutman@swlaw.com

    It’s Time to Change the Way You Think About Case Complexity

    August 07, 2018 —
    There are few things that lawyers love more than telling war stories. Partially, that’s because many lawyers either only or primarily have friends who are lawyers, and war stories are a way for lawyers to relate to each other—your barber doesn’t understand the pain of reading through 5 paragraphs of irrelevant objections posed to each of 75 interrogatories, but your fellow lawyers will. One common feature of war stories is a note regarding how much was at issue in the case. “I was handling this $25 million claim once….” Lawyers include the dollar figure in dispute as a shorthand for the complexity of the case they’re talking about. “Oh, we’ll be in depositions for a month solid, this is a $10 million case!” I don’t know where I picked up this habit, but I know exactly how I learned to rethink it. A friend of mine, as in-house counsel, was handling a case worth over a billion dollars. When he told me about it, my jaw dropped. One of the first things I asked him was, how do you manage a case that big? And he told me about the several law firms he had engaged, all the people working on it. But then he said: it’s not really a complicated case. There were only 4-5 real factual questions, and a similar number of legal ones. It’s just that every factual question had a very high price tag associated with it. The high price tag doesn’t make the factual question any more complex, or any harder to litigate. For example, your builders’ risk policy either has coverage for flood damage or it doesn’t. If it does, then it doesn’t matter whether the flood washed the whole building away or just some materials from the laydown area—coverage is coverage, irrespective of quantum. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ben Patrick, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Patrick may be contacted at jpatrick@grsm.com

    MetLife Takes Majority Stake in New San Francisco Office Tower

    October 21, 2015 —
    MetLife Inc. is taking a majority stake in a 43-story office tower being built next to San Francisco’s Transbay Transit Center, expanding the biggest U.S. life insurer’s holdings in one of the country’s most expensive office markets. MetLife formed a joint venture with Chicago-based John Buck Co. and Golub & Co. for the property, called Park Tower at Transbay, the companies said in a statement before the building’s groundbreaking Tuesday. The tower, which doesn’t yet have a tenant, is scheduled for completion in 2018. Financial terms of the venture weren’t disclosed. Fred Pieretti, a spokesman for MetLife, said the company will own a majority interest in the building. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hui-Yong Yu, Bloomberg