BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut testifying construction 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


    BHA Announces New Orlando Location

    Ensuring Arbitration in Construction Defect Claims

    Jury's Verdict for Loss Caused by Collapse Overturned

    Like Water For Chocolate: Insurer Prevails Over Chocolatier In Hurricane Sandy Claim

    Cal/OSHA’s Toolbox Has Significantly Expanded: A Look At Senate Bill 606

    Recent Supreme Court Decision Could Have Substantial Impact on Builders

    New York Court Finds Insurers Cannot Recover Defense Costs Where No Duty to Indemnify

    Housing Markets Continue to Improve

    Large Canada Employers and Jobsites Mandate COVID-19 Vaccines

    Are Construction Defect Claims Covered Under CGL Policies?

    Presenting a “Total Time” Delay Claim Is Not Sufficient

    White and Williams LLP Secures Affirmation of Denial to Change Trial Settings Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to Meet the Texas Causation Standard for Asbestos Cases

    2022 California Construction Law Update

    Fifth Circuit Concludes Government’s CAA Legal Claims are Time-Barred But Injunctive-Relief Claims are Not

    Construction Termination Part 3: When the Contractor Is Firing the Owner

    Guessing as to your Construction Damages is Not the Best Approach

    Colorado Abandons the “Completed and Accepted Rule” in Favor of the “Foreseeability Rule” in Determining a Contractor’s Duty to a Third Party After Work Has Been Completed

    HOA Coalition Statement on Construction-Defects Transparency Legislation

    These Pioneers Are Already Living the Green Recovery

    Building 47 Bridges in Two Years

    Sacramento’s Commercial Construction Market Heats Up

    Infrared Photography Illuminates Construction Defects and Patent Trolling

    No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

    Millennials Skip the Ring and Mortgage

    Adaptive Reuse: Creative Reimagining of Former Office Space to Address Differing Demands

    Vacation during a Project? Time for your Construction Documents to Shine!

    One Way Arbitration Provisions are Enforceable in Virginia

    Insurer’s Attempt to Shift Cost of Defense to Another Insurer Found Void as to Public Policy

    Touchdown! – The Construction Industry’s Winning Audible to the COVID Blitz

    Corps Issues Draft EIS for Controversial Alaskan Copper Mine

    What Made the Savannah Harbor Upgrade So Complicated?

    Appraiser Declarations Inadmissible When Offered to Challenge the Merits of an Appraisal Award

    Just Because I May Be An “Expert” Does Not Mean I Am Giving Expert Testimony

    Apartment Construction Increasing in Colorado while Condo Construction Remains Slow

    South Carolina’s New Insurance Data Security Act: Pebbles Before a Landslide?

    Rattlesnake Bite Triggers Potential Liability for Walmart

    Are COVID-19 Claims Covered by Builders Risk Insurance Policies?

    First Circuit: No Coverage, No Duty to Investigate Alleged Loss Prior to Policy Period

    Angela Cooner Named "Top Lawyer" by Phoenix Magazine in Inaugural Publication

    San Francisco Half-Built Apartment Complex Destroyed by Fire

    Tallest U.S. Skyscraper Dream Kept Alive by Irish Builder

    The Texas Storm – Guidance for Contractors

    Snooze You Lose? Enforcement of Notice and Timing Provisions

    Evolving Climate Patterns and Extreme Weather Demand New Building Methods

    Homeowners Should Beware, Warn Home Builders

    Failure to Meet Code Case Remanded to Lower Court for Attorney Fees

    New Recommendations for Healthy and Safe Housing Conditions

    Key Takeaways For Employers in the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Halt to OSHA’s Vax/Testing Mandate

    Risky Business: Contractual Protections in the 'New Normal'

    Is the Removal and Replacement of Nonconforming Work Economically Wasteful?
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Domtar Update

    June 11, 2014 —
    On May 29, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur—i.e., the permission to appeal—in the controversial subrogation case, Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Domtar Paper Co., 77 A.3d 1282 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). In its order granting the relief to Liberty Mutual, a workers’ compensation insurer, the Supreme Court set forth the narrow issue to be decided on appeal: “Does Section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 671, allow the employer/insurer to step into the shoes of the insured employee to subrogate against the tortfeasor?” In Domtar, Liberty Mutual was caused to incur approximately $35,000 in compensation benefits which it paid on behalf of George Lawrence, an employee of Liberty Mutual’s insured, for injuries he sustained in a work-related accident. Mr. Lawrence chose not to file an independent personal injury lawsuit. As a result, in order to recover its lien interests, Liberty Mutual sued the third parties responsible for causing Mr. Lawrence’s work-related injuries directly, having become subrogated to the rights of Mr. Lawrence by virtue of Liberty Mutual’s workers’ compensation expenditure on his behalf. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com

    Colorado HB 13-1090: Concerning Payment of Amounts Due Under a Construction Agreement

    February 21, 2013 —
    On January 17, 2013 Representative Fischer introduced House Bill 13-1090 into the Colorado House of Representatives. HB 1090 was assigned the House Business, Labor, Economic and Workforce Development Committee. The bill, sponsored by Senator Tochtrop in the Senate, sets the following requirements for both private and public construction contracts: The owner and contractor must make regular progress payments approximately every 30 days to contractors and subcontractors for work actually performed. To receive the progress payments, the contractor and subcontractor must submit a progress payment invoice plus any required documents. A contractor must pass on the progress payment to the subcontractor within 5 days or by the end of the billing cycle. Interest accrues on unpaid progress payments. A contract may extend a billing cycle to 60 days, but the contract must duly warn of this. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain
    mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Guidance for Structural Fire Engineering Making Its Debut

    February 02, 2017 —
    The International Code Council has approved—as expected—the updated structural building-design standard, written by the American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute, for inclusion in the 2018 edition of the ICC’s model International Building Code. ICC’s validation committee certified “ASCE/SEI 7-16: Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures,” and ICC’s board of directors confirmed it late last month, says Mike Pfeiffer, ICC’s senior vice president, technical services. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
    Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

    Pre-Judgment Interest Not Awarded Under Flood Policy

    January 17, 2023 —
    The court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss state law and extracontractual claims, including pre-judgment interest. Hurley v. Wright Nat'l Flood Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Distl. LEXIS 203803 (W.D. La. Nov. 8, 2022). The insured suffered damage from Hurricane Delta. He filed suit, alleging that Wright National Flood Insurance Company breached the Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP). The insured sought damages for state law claims for bad faith, diminution in value, actual repair costs, attorney's fees , litigation costs, and interest. Wright moved to dismiss the extracontractual state law causes of action for bad faith and various claims for damages, other than the damages sought for the alleged breach of the SFIP. The court explained that the Write-Your-Own (WYO) Program carriers issuing flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) arranged for the adjustment, settlement, payment, and defense of all claims arising from the policy. Congress underwrote all operations of the NIFP, including claims adjustment, through United States Treasury funds. A judgment against a WYO Program carrier constituted a judgment against FEMA, and consequently, a direct charge on the United States Treasury.  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

    Erdogan Vows to Punish Shoddy Builders Ahead of Crucial Election

    April 25, 2023 —
    Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan vowed to punish breakers of construction-safety regulations in the wake of February’s deadly earthquakes, a move to distance himself from the devastation brought by tens of thousands of building collapses. “We will squeeze them into a corner,” Erdogan said in an interview with with CNN-Turk television late Wednesday. “It will be included in crimes that can’t be pardoned.” The aftermath of the Turkey earthquakes, which killed at least 50,000 people, has become a major talking point ahead of May 14 presidential elections. Erdogan is looking to extend his two-decade rule and is facing his toughest test yet from a united opposition, and critics say he is responsible for allowing builders to skip safety rules to win support in previous votes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Selcan Hacaoglu, Bloomberg

    Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

    May 09, 2011 —

    In the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.

    First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”

    The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”

    Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”

    The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Construction Bidding for Success

    May 22, 2023 —
    When construction companies develop a history of successful projects, they often consider bidding on larger projects. However, larger projects can carry greater risks. If your company has successfully completed numerous $10 million projects and is considering a bid on a $100 million project, there are several factors to consider before submitting a proposal. That is because bidding on the wrong project could potentially put you out of business. “When a contractor bids a larger project, there is a greater financial risk,” says Tim Holicky, a senior executive underwriter at The Hartford. There are more subcontractors to manage and additional materials to purchase, which all leads to greater financial risk. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights

    Jersey City, New Jersey, to Get 95-Story Condo Tower

    January 21, 2015 —
    A Chinese developer is planning a 95-story condominium tower for the Jersey City, New Jersey, waterfront that would be the tallest building in the state. China Overseas America Inc. plans to construct the 950-foot (290-meter) building at 99 Hudson St., according to a statement on Tuesday from Mayor Steven Fulop. The skyscraper, with 760 for-sale dwellings, would surpass the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. tower two blocks to the south, which is 781 feet tall, according to the statement. Mr. Levitt may be contacted at dlevitt@bloomberg.net; Mr. Dopp may be contacted at tdopp@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. Levitt and Terrence Dopp, Bloomberg