BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim 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


    How AB5 has Changed the Employment Landscape

    Court Grants Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment After Insured Fails to Provide Evidence of Systemic Collapse

    Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same

    More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?

    Hartford Stadium Controversy Still Unresolved

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    Google’s Floating Mystery Boxes Solved?

    I-35W Bridge Collapse may be Due to “Inadequate Load Capacity”

    Avoiding 'E-trouble' in Construction Litigation

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage for Contractor's Faulty Workmanship

    Congress Considers Pandemic Risk Insurance Act to Address COVID-19 Business Interruptions Losses

    Florida Court Puts the Claim of Landlord’s Insurer In The No-Fly Zone

    Slump in U.S. Housing Starts Led by Multifamily: Economy

    New Executive Order: Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All

    Wyoming Supreme Court Picks a Side After Reviewing the Sutton Rule

    No Interlocutory Appeals of "Garden-Variety" Contract Disputes

    Predicting Our Future with Andrew Weinreich

    A Compilation of Quirky Insurance Claims

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

    MBS’s $500 Billion Desert Dream Just Keeps Getting Weirder

    COVID-19 Pandemic Preference Amendments to Bankruptcy Code Benefiting Vendors, Customers, Commercial Landlords and Tenants

    Mediating is Eye Opening

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect, Bad Faith Claims

    Practical Pointers for Change Orders on Commercial Construction Contracts

    MDL for Claims Against Manufacturers and Distributors of PFAS-Containing AFFFs Focuses Attention on Key Issues

    Berlin Lawmakers Get a New Green Workspace

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Finds Insured AOAO Not Liable for Securing Inadequate Insurance

    Insurance Litigation Roundup: “Post No Bills!”

    Jury Trials: A COVID Update

    Breaking News: Connecticut Supreme Court Decides Significant Coverage Issues in R.T. Vanderbilt

    Appraisal Award for Damaged Roof Tiles Challenged

    Infrastructure Money Comes With Labor Law Strings Attached

    Is New York Heading for a Construction Defect Boom?

    The One New Year’s Resolution You’ll Want to Keep if You’re Involved in Public Works Projects

    Lasso Needed to Complete Vegas Hotel Implosion

    School for Building Trades Helps Fill Need for Skilled Workers

    Return-to-Workplace Checklist: Considerations and Emerging Best Practices for Employers

    Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<

    Taylor Morrison v. Terracon and the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007

    Insurer's In-House Counsel's Involvement in Coverage Decision Opens Door to Discovery

    Can an App Renovate a Neighborhood?

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    Bremer Whyte’s Newport Beach Team Prevails on a Motion for Summary Judgment in a Wrongful Death Case!

    Winning Attorney Fees in Litigation as a California Construction Contractor or Subcontractor

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    Bad Faith Claim for Investigation Fails

    Read Before You Sign: Claim Waivers in Project Documents

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

    Allegations of Actual Property Damage Necessary to Invoke Duty to Defend

    If I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable?
    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

    County Officials Refute Resident’s Statement that Defect Repairs Improper

    August 27, 2014 —
    Manatee County, Florida officials stated that “they are confident construction defects at the Willowbrook subdivision being fixed by the builder KB Home are being properly supervised and repaired,” according to the Bradenton Herald. However, a resident told the Bradenton Herald previously that “mold remediation isn’t being done properly and good wood was being installed over rotted wood.” John Barnott, director of the Manatee County Building & Development Services Department told the Bradenton Herald that the county building chief has been at the site “every week, three or four times a week.” Carroll Dupre, the county building chief, stated that the development “looks real good.” The commissioner, Vanessa Baugh, stated that she had not received any complaints from Willowbrook residents and that “she was ‘not pleased with the implications of the article.’” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sales of U.S. New Homes Decline After Record May Revision

    July 30, 2014 —
    Fewer new U.S. homes were sold in June than forecast and May data showed the biggest downward revision on record, painting a picture of a housing market that is struggling to gain traction. Sales of newly built homes declined 8.1 percent to a 406,000 annualized pace, the fewest since March and less than any economist surveyed by Bloomberg forecast, Commerce Department figures showed today in Washington. That followed a May reading of 442,000 that was 12.3 percent lower than estimated last month. Restrictive lending rules, limited land supply, higher mortgage rates and more expensive properties are keeping a lid on how much the housing recovery can accelerate. Continued employment gains and bigger increases in wages will be needed to support further growth in the industry, which has stalled since interest rates started climbing last year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Victoria Stilwell, Bloomberg
    Ms. Stilwell may be contacted at vstilwell1@bloomberg.net

    Recent Developments Involving Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington

    September 05, 2022 —
    Ever since the Washington Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington, 176 Wn.2d 686, 295 P.3d 239 (2013), insurance coverage attorneys have been struggling to define the exact parameters of the Cedell ruling in order to safeguard the attorney-client privilege as to the communications between the insurer and its counsel. As a brief background, the Washington Supreme Court held in Cedell that there is a presumption of no attorney-client privilege in a lawsuit involving bad faith claims handling. However, an insurer can overcome the presumption of no attorney-client privilege by showing that its counsel provided legal advice regarding the insurer’s potential liability under the policy and law, and did not engage in any quasi-fiduciary activities, i.e. claims handling activities, such as investigating, evaluating, adjusting or processing the insured’s claim. Since Cedell, various trial courts have held that the following activities by an insurer’s counsel constitute quasi-fiduciary conduct that do not overcome the presumption of no attorney-client privilege, resulting in an order to produce documents and/or to permit the deposition of the insurer’s counsel:
    • Insurer’s attorney being the primary or sole point of contact with the insured for the insurer;
    • Insurer’s attorney requesting documents from the insured that are relevant to the investigation of the claim;
    • Insurer’s attorney communicating directly with the insured or the insured’s counsel regarding claims handling issues or payments;
    • Insurer’s attorney interviewing witnesses for purposes of the investigation of the claim;
    • Insurer’s attorney conducting an examination under oath of the insured;
    • Insurer’s attorney drafting proposed or final reservation of rights letter or denial letter to the insured; and
    • Insurer’s attorney conducting settlement negotiations in an underlying litigation.
    Reprinted courtesy of Donald Verfurth, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Sally Kim, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Stephanie Ries, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and Kyle Silk-Eglit, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Mr. Verfurth may be contacted at dverfurth@grsm.com Ms. Kim may be contacted at sallykim@grsm.com Ms. Ries may be contacted at sries@grsm.com Mr. Silk-Eglit may be contacted at ksilkeglit@grsm.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hawaii Federal Court Grants Insured's Motion for Remand

    January 12, 2015 —
    The federal district court, district of Hawaii, recently granted the insured's motion for remand. Catholic Foreign Mission Society of Am., Inc. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., Civ. No. 14-00420, Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Remand and Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Transfer (D. Haw. Dec. 30, 2014) [Order here]. [Full disclosure - our office represents the insured, Maryknoll]. Maryknoll was sued in several lawsuits filed in Hawaii state court by victims of alleged sexual abuse occurring as far back as the 1950s by members of the clergy. Maryknoll was insured during these periods under liability policies issued by various carriers. The successor of Royal Globe Insurance Company, Arrowood Indemnity Company, agreed to defend some of the underlying lawsuits, but declined to defend others. The Travelers Companies, Inc. refused 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

    That’s What I have Insurance For, Right?

    December 31, 2014 —
    Ah, the age old question, What does my insurance really cover? A federal court in Georgia recently weighed in on this issue in Standard Contractors, Inc. v. National Trust Insurance Company, and ruled that a contractor’s commercial general liability insurer did not have to pay for damage caused by a subcontractor. Standard Contractors was hired to renovate the pool on an army base. Standard hired a subcontractor to for design and installation work. The subcontractor’s work was subpar in that the subcontractor omitted a number of parts, installed the wrong parts, and caused more than $400,000 in damage to the pool. Standard submitted a claim to its insurer seeking coverage for the loss under its commercial general liability policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    New York State Trial Court: Non-Cumulation Provision in Excess Policies Mandates “All Sums” Allocation

    October 02, 2018 —
    On August 18, 2018, the New York Supreme Court, New York County, confirmed a referee’s finding that “all sums” allocation was required under excess policies issued by Midland Insurance Company because they included a non-cumulation provision. See Matter of Liquidation of Midland Ins. Co., Index No. 041294/1986 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 18, 2018). Midland was a multi-line carrier that wrote a substantial amount of excess coverage for Fortune 500 companies. In the 1980s, Midland faced significant exposure for environmental, asbestos and product liability claims. In 1986, it was placed in liquidation and the New York State Superintendent of Insurance (the Liquidator) was appointed as its receiver. Since then, the New York Supreme Court has presided over the liquidation proceedings. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Paul Briganti, White & Williams LLP
    Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

    Randy Okland Honored as 2019 Intermountain Legacy Award Winner

    January 06, 2020 —
    A passion for construction is in Randy Okland’s blood. His family’s business, Salt Lake City’s Okland Construction, was founded in 1918 by his grandfather, John Okland, a Norwegian immigrant and shipbuilder. Randy swept the floors and cleaned and fueled company vehicles while working as a laborer and later as a carpenter and concrete former. After graduating from the University of Utah, Randy worked full time at Okland, eventually taking over leadership of the company from his father in 1980. Jennifer Seward, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A WARNing for Companies

    March 13, 2023 —
    Since last fall, news of layoffs in the technology sector have set off a ripple effect in a variety of other industries. Companies engaging in layoffs must be thoughtful and prepared when it comes to taking such action. While the construction industry generally has one of the highest layoff rates, and human resource personnel may be very knowledgeable with regard to related risks and exposure, there are a number of additional issues to consider when there are mass layoffs or closings. Further, expensive litigation awaits if companies are not meticulous in complying with state and federal laws regarding such large scale reductions in force. Under federal law, the primary legislation governing mass layoffs and closing is the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act which generally covers employers with 100 or more employees. This law was enacted to protect employees by requiring companies to provide 60 days’ notice to employees in advance of certain plant closings and mass layoffs. In addition, many states, such as California, Connecticut and New York, have enacted similar state laws, referred to as “mini-WARN” laws, which impose additional requirements, including increasing the length of the required advance notice and broadening the scope of employers to which the law applies. Reprinted courtesy of Abby M. Warren and Sapna Jain, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of