BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildings
    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


    Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees on Attorney’s Fees

    Detroit Showed What ‘Build Back Better’ Can Look Like

    America’s Infrastructure Gets a D+

    Marlena Ellis Makes The Lawyers of Color Hot List of 2022

    Philadelphia Proposed Best Value Procurement Bill

    When Licensing Lapses: How One Contractor Lost a $1 Million Dispute

    Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

    Construction Contract Basics: Venue and Choice of Law

    Will On-Site Robotics Become Feasible in Construction?

    Construction Contract Basics: No Damages for Delay

    Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Named to Benchmark Litigation’s 2019 40 & Under Hot List

    Homebuilding on the Rise in Nation’s Capitol

    Landmark Contractor Licensing Case Limits Disgorgement Remedy in California

    Plehat Brings Natural Environments into Design Tools

    WSHB Secures Victory in Construction Defect Case: Contractor Wins Bench Trial

    The Court of Appeals Holds That Indifference to Safety Satisfies the Standard for a Willful Violation Under WISHA

    California Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Commissioner’s Authority to Regulate Replacement Cost Estimates

    Property Owner Found Liable for Injuries to Worker of Unlicensed Contractor, Again

    Mortgagors Seek Coverage Under Mortgagee's Policy

    Construction of World's Tallest Building to Resume With New $1.9B Contract for Jeddah Tower

    Construction Companies Must Prepare for a Surge of Third-Party Contractors

    Uniwest Rides Again (or, Are Architects Subject to Va. Code Section 11-4.1?)

    Breaking the Impasse by Understanding Blame

    Manhattan Townhouse Sells for a Record $79.5 Million

    Unwrapped Pipes Lead to Flooding and Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability

    Key California Employment Law Cases: October 2018

    Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    No Duty to Defend under Homeowner's Policy Where No Occurrence, No Property Damage

    ASCE Statement on House Passage of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Court Rules Planned Development of Banning Ranch May Proceed

    68 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Recognized in 5th Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

    Are Proprietary Specifications Illegal?

    Report to Congress Calls for Framework to Cut Post-Quake Recovery Time

    Home Building Mergers and Acquisitions 2014 Predictions

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/10/24) – New Type of Nuclear Reactor, Big Money Surrounding Sports Stadiums, and Positivity from Fannie Mae’s Monthly Consumer Survey

    New Jersey Firm’s Fee Action Tossed for not Filing Substitution of Counsel

    Is Performance Bond Liable for Delay Damages?

    Number of Occurrences Is On the Agenda at This Year's ICLC Seminar

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Affirms Broker's Liability for Failure to Renew Coverage

    Benefits to Insureds Under Property Insurance Policy – Concurrent Cause Doctrine

    Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot and "Virus": One of These Things is Not Like the Other

    How to Survive the Insurance Claim Process Before It Starts –Five Tips to Keep Your Insurance Healthy

    Boston Team Secures Summary Judgment Dismissal on Client’s Behalf in Serious Personal Injury Case

    In One of the First Civil Jury Trials to Proceed Live in Los Angeles Superior Court During Covid, Aneta Freeman Successfully Prevailed on Behalf of our Client and Obtained a Directed Verdict and Non-Suit

    New York Court Rules on Architect's Duty Under Contract and Tort Principles

    Subprime Bonds Are Back With Different Name Seven Years After U.S. Crisis

    Empowering Success: The Advantages of Female Attorneys in Construction Defect Law

    Safe and Safer

    How VR and AR Will Help in Remote Expert Assistance
    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. Drawing 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

    More Musings on Why I Mediate

    November 18, 2024 —
    Whew! I’m back. And yes, I know it’s been a while (it has been a busy year, both personally and professionally). Hopefully, this will be the first of at least a few more consistent posts here at Construction Law Musings. Now, on with the post: Over the last few weeks, I’ve had a surge in mediation, both in my capacity as a mediator and as counsel for construction industry clients. These recent events have reaffirmed what I have always believed to be true, namely that no construction case is impossible to settle and avoid the cost and expense of litigation. I was also reminded of why I became a certified mediator and of the satisfaction that I get from helping individuals and construction companies find a business solution and closure. 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

    Fifth Circuit Holds Insurer Owes Duty to Defend Latent Condition Claim That Caused Fire Damage to Property Years After Construction Work

    October 05, 2020 —
    Most general liability policies only provide coverage for “property damage” that occurs during the policy period. Thus, when analyzing coverage for a construction defect claim, it is important to ascertain the date on which damage occurred. Of course, the plaintiffs’ bar crafts pleadings to be purposefully vague as to the date (or period) of damage to property. A recent Fifth Circuit decision applying Texas law addresses this coverage issue in the context of allegations of a condition created by an insured during the policy period that caused damage after the policy expired. In Gonzalez v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 969 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2020), Gilbert Gonzales (the insured) was a siding contractor. In 2013, the underlying plaintiff hired Gonzales to install new siding on his house. In 2016, the underlying plaintiff’s house was damaged in a fire. The underlying plaintiff sued Gilbert in Texas state court alleging that when Gonzalez installed the siding in 2013, he hammered nails through electrical wiring and created a dangerous condition that caused a fire three years later in 2016. At the time Gilbert performed construction work, he was insured by Mid-Continent Casualty Company. Mid-Continent disclaimed coverage to Gonzales on the basis that the complaint unequivocally alleged that property was damaged in 2016 and there were no allegations that property damage occurred prior to 2016 or was continuing in nature. 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

    No Additional Insured Coverage for Subcontractor's Work Outside Policy Period

    August 19, 2015 —
    In a dispute between two insurers, the district court determined that the contractor was not an additional insured under the subcontractor's policy. Navigators Spec. Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79338 (N. D. Cal. June 17, 2015). McDevitt & McDevitt Construction Corporation was the general contractor for construction of a condominium complex. McDevitt was insured by Navigators Specialty Insurance Company. F&M was a subcontractor for the project for providing structural steel components. F&M's subcontract required it to obtain liability insurance and name McDevitt as an additional insured under a policy that was to be primary. F&M secured a policy with North American Capacity Insurance Company (NAC) which included an endorsement for additional insureds. The endorsement provided that an entity could be an additional insured only with respect to "occurrences resulting from work performed by you during the policy period, or occurrences resulting from the conduct of your business during the policy period." McDevitt and F&M were sued for construct defect claims. Navigators defended McDevitt and NAC defended F&M. Navigators tendered McDevitt's defense to NAC because McDevitt was an additional insured under NAC's policy. NAC disclaimed coverage. 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

    Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Standard of Repose in Fruit Warehouse Case

    August 04, 2011 —

    On July 28, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled in Clasen Fruit & Cold Storage v. Frederick & Michael Construction Co., Inc. that more than six years had passed since a contractor had concluded work and so granted a summary dismissal of the suit.

    Frederick & Michael Construction Co., Inc. (F&M) was contracted to construct several buildings for Clasen Fruit and Cold Storage. These were completed in March, 1999. The buildings suffered wind damage to the roofs in 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2006. In the first two incidents, F&M repaired the roofs with Clasen paying for repairs.

    In 2005, Clasen hired Continuous Gutter to make repairs. The final incident was the collapse of the roof of one building. This was attributed to “excessive moisture in the roof’s vapor barriers.” At this point, Clasen demanded that F&M pay for repair and replacement costs. In 2008, Clasen sued F&M for damages for breach of contract and negligent design and construction of the roof.

    The decision then covered the meanings, in Washington law, of “termination of services” and “substantial completion.” The panel concluded that construction was “substantially completed in 1997” and “relevant services” by 2001. “But Clasen did not sue until 2008, some seven years after termination of any roof related services.”

    Read the court’s decision…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co.

    December 20, 2017 —
    The Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., Case No., SC16-1420, which answered the following certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: Is the notice and repair process set forth in Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes a “suit'” within the meaning of the CGL policies issued by C&F to ACI? Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John Chiocca, Cole Scott & Kissane P.A.
    Mr. Chiocca may be contacted at john.chiocca@csklegal.com

    Apartments pushed up US homebuilding in September

    October 22, 2014 —
    WASHINGTON (AP) — Construction firms broke ground on more apartment complexes in September, pushing up the pace of U.S. homebuilding. Housing starts rose 6.3 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.017 million homes, the Commerce Department said Friday. Almost all of the gains came from apartment construction — a volatile category — which increased 18.5 percent after plunging in August. The sluggish recovery and meager wage growth has left more Americans renting instead of owning homes. Apartment construction has surged 30.3 percent over the past 12 months. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Josh Boak, Bloomberg Businessweek

    Neighbor Allowed to Remove Tree Roots on Her Property That Supported Adjoining Landowners’ Two Large Trees With Legal Immunity

    July 14, 2016 —
    A recent Washington Court of Appeals opinion addressed the rights of a neighbor to destroy roots and branches on her property that belonged to trees located on an adjoining landowner’s property.[1] Mustoe had two large Douglas-fir trees located entirely on her property, about two and one-half feet from the property line with her neighbor Ma. Ma caused a ditch to be dug on her property along the border with Mustoe’s lot. The ditch was 18-20 inches deep. In the process, Ma exposed and removed the trees’ roots, leaving them to extend only three-four feet from the trunks of the trees. This resulted in a loss of nearly half of the trees’ roots, all from the south side, exposing them to southerly winds with no support. The damaged trees posed a high risk of falling on Mustoe’s home. The landscape value of the trees was estimated to be $16,418. The cost of their removal was estimated to be $3,913. Mustoe filed suit against Ma asserting that Ma had negligently, recklessly, and intentionally excavated and damaged her trees, along with other property, and also sought emotional distress damages. The trial court dismissed Mustoe’s suit. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Paul R. Cressman, Jr., Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Cressman may be contacted at pcressman@ac-lawyers.com

    Patriarch Partners Decision Confirms Government Subpoenas May Constitute a “Claim” Under D&O Policy; Warns Policyholders to Think Broadly When Representing Facts and Circumstances to Insurers

    January 08, 2019 —
    The Second Circuit recently confirmed in Patriarch Partners, LLC v. Axis Insurance Co. that a warranty letter accompanying the policyholder’s insurance application barred coverage for a lengthy SEC investigation, which ripened into a “Claim” prior to the policy’s inception date. The opinion left intact the lower court’s finding that the SEC subpoena constituted a “demand for non-monetary relief” and thus qualified as a “Claim” under the directors and officers (D&O) insurance policy. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys Michael S. Levine, Sergio F. Oehninger and Joshua S. Paster Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Paster may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of