BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expert
    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


    And the Winner Is . . . The Right to Repair Act!

    Seattle Developer Defaults on Renovated Office Buildings

    Claims Against Broker Dismissed

    Remodel Leaves Guitarist’s Home Leaky and Moldy

    Most Common OSHA Violations Highlight Ongoing Risks

    Couple Claims Contractor’s Work Is Defective and Incomplete

    Diggin’ Ain’t Easy: Remember to Give Notice Before You Excavate in California

    Preserving Your Construction Claim

    Manhattan’s Property Boom Pushes Landlords to Sell Early

    UPDATE: Texas Federal Court Permanently Enjoins U.S. Department of Labor “Persuader Rule” Requiring Law Firms and Other Consultants to Disclose Work Performed for Employers on Union Organization Efforts

    California Booms With FivePoint New Schools: Real Estate

    Proposed Changes to Federal Lease Accounting Standards

    Labor Intensive

    Conversations with My Younger Self: 5 Things I Wish I Knew Then

    School System Settles Design Defect Suit for $5.2Million

    Five Issues to Consider in Government Contracting (Or Any Contracting!)

    Pillsbury Insights – Navigating the Real Estate Market During COVID-19

    First Quarter Gains in Housing Affordability

    Housing Gains Not Leading to Hiring

    The Overlooked Nevada Rule In an Arena Project Lawsuit

    Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    Occurrence-Based Insurance Policies and Claims-Made Insurance Policies – There’s a Crucial Difference

    Norristown, PA to Stop Paying Repair Costs for Defect-Ridden Condo

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

    Demanding a Reduction in Retainage

    Biden's Next 100 Days: Major Impacts Expected for the Construction Industry

    Union THUGS Plead Guilty

    Adobe Opens New Office Tower and Pledges No Companywide Layoffs in 2023

    Environmental and Regulatory Law Update: New Federal and State Rulings

    Court Concludes That COVID-19 Losses Can Qualify as “Direct Physical Loss”

    HHMR is pleased to announce that David McLain has been selected as a 2020 Super Lawyer

    What is a Personal Injury?

    EO or Uh-Oh: Biden’s Executive Order Requiring Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects

    Georgia Court Reaffirms Construction Defect Decision

    Lawsuit Gives Teeth to Massachusetts Pay Law

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects at Trump Towers

    2017 Colorado Construction Defect Recap: Colorado Legislature and Judiciary Make Favorable Advances for Development Community

    Global Insurer Agrees to Pay COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

    Trial Victory in San Mateo County!

    No Coverage for Restoring Aesthetic Uniformity

    Alaska Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade

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

    Intentional Mining Neighbor's Property is Not an Occurrence

    Just Because You Caused it, Doesn’t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine

    North Dakota Supreme Court Clarifies Breadth of Contractual Liability Coverage

    Mitigating Mold Exposure in Manufacturing and Multifamily Buildings

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Brokers' MSJ on Duties Owed In Construction Defect Case

    Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: TOM NOCAR

    Cyber Security Insurance and Design Professionals

    Public Works Bid Protests – Who Is Responsible? Who Is Responsive?
    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

    Defense Owed for Product Liability Claims That Do Not Amount to Faulty Workmanship

    December 30, 2013 —
    The trial court's holding that there was no occurrence based on claims from faulty workmanship was reversed by the appellate division of the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The underlying claims were based on product liability tort claims, not faulty workmanship. Indalex Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA., 2013 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3186 (Pa. Superior Court Dec. 3, 2013). The underlying lawsuits claimed that the insureds' windows and doors were defectively designed or manufactured, which resulted in water leakage causing physical damage, such as mold and cracked walls. There were also personal injury claims. The insureds had a primary policy with OneBeacon Insurance Group, but the policy limits were exhausted. The insureds turned to their commercial umbrella policy issued by National Union. The policy defined occurrence as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in Bodily Injury or Property Damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the Insured." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Critical Materials for the Energy Transition: Of “Rare Earths” and Even Rarer Minerals

    September 12, 2022 —
    As the world pursues ambitious net-zero carbon emission goals, demand is soaring for the critical materials required for the technologies leading the energy transition. Lithium may be the most well-known of these inputs due to its usage in batteries for vehicles and consumer electronics, but roughly 50 other minerals are central to energy transition technologies. During the coming years, producers, manufacturers and end-users will be increasingly exposed to the roles played by “rare earth” elements (roughly, atomic numbers 57 to 71), platinum group metals, and other materials. The reasons for this heightened interest are simple—even if the underlying environmental, political and technological forces at play are complex:
    • Lower-carbon technologies use different materials than carbon-intensive technologies. The mineral requirements of power and mobility systems driven by renewable, nuclear, hydrogen and fusion energy are profoundly different from those forming the backbone of fossil fuel systems. Minerals such as lithium, nickel, copper, cobalt, and rare earth elements are vital for electric vehicles (EVs), batteries, fuel cells, electricity grids, wind turbines, smart devices, and many other essential and proliferating civilian and military technologies. For example, an offshore wind plant needs 13 times more mineral resources than a gas power plant of a similar size.
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. James, Pillsbury, Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury, Shellka Arora-Cox, Pillsbury and Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Arora-Cox may be contacted at shellka.aroracox@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Montana Supreme Court Tackles Decade-Old Coverage Dispute Concerning Asbestos Mineworker Claims

    December 20, 2021 —
    On November 23, 2021, the Montana Supreme Court issued an almost unanimous decision in National Indemnity Company v. State of Montana, a ten-year-old coverage dispute arising from claims against the State of Montana alleging it had failed to warn of asbestos dust conditions at vermiculite mining and milling operations in and around Libby, Montana (the Libby Mine) run by W.R. Grace & Company and its predecessors. Affirming in part and reversing in part rulings by the trial court that culminated in a $98 million judgment against the State’s CGL insurer from 1973 to 1975, the court addressed issues including the duty to defend/estoppel, the number of occurrences, “trigger of coverage,” and, in a case of first impression, allocation under Montana law. Whether the Insurer Breached the Duty to Defend Depended Upon the Timeframe The court looked at whether (1) the insured provided sufficient information to bring the claims within the possibility of coverage under the subject policy and (2) the insurer gave “the necessary substance to” fulfilling its duty to defend at four points in the relevant timeframe:
    1. The insurer did not breach its duty at the time the State initially tendered the Libby Mine claims because the State defended the claims through its self-insurance program, hired its own counsel, managed the litigation, made its own defense decisions, and took the position with the insurer that the matter was “under control” and “nothing was left to be done[.]”
    Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams and Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Haight’s Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Southern California Rising Stars

    June 14, 2021 —
    Congratulations to partner Kristian Moriarty who was selected to the Super Lawyers 2021 Southern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insured's Claim for Replacement Cost Denied

    December 02, 2015 —
    The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the insured was only entitled to the actual cost value of his loss, not the replacement cost. Lytle v. Country Mutual Ins. Co., 2015 Ill. App. LEXIS 756 (Sept. 30, 2015). The insured's home was built around 1903. On June 21, 2011, the insured discovered damage to his home because of a severe storm. He made a claim with his insurer, Country Mutual. The policy contained a depreciation holdback provision. The provision said the insurer would not pay more than the actual cash value until the actual repair or replacement was complete. If the insured elected to accept actual cash value, he would have one year from the date of the loss to repair or replace the damaged property and request the difference between the actual cash value and the replacement cost. 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

    Subcontractors Eye 2022 with Guarded Optimism

    October 11, 2021 —
    While work continues to be plentiful for specialty contractors across the five-state region of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas, concerns remain for how the project landscape will continue to evolve as the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to weigh on the world. Reprinted courtesy of Louise Poirier, Engineering News-Record Ms. Poirier may be contacted at poirierl@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Claims for Negligence? Duty to Defend Triggered

    July 09, 2019 —
    On June 17, 2019, the First Circuit held that an insurer’s duty to defend was triggered because the underlying complaint set forth claims that required a showing of intent as well as claims that sought recovery for conduct that “fits comfortably within the definition of an ‘accident.’” In Zurich American Ins. Co v. Electricity Maine, LLC, Zurich sought declaratory judgment that, under a D&O policy, it had no duty to defend the insured, Electricity Maine, an electrical utility company being sued in the underlying class action. Zurich argued it had no duty to defend because the underlying complaint failed to allege that Electricity Maine engaged in conduct that qualified as an “occurrence” or that caused “bodily injury” under the terms of the policy. The First Circuit disagreed. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Perez may be contacted at aperez@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The “Ugly” Property Next Door is Ruining My Property Value

    September 14, 2017 —
    Traditional bases for private nuisance claims include circumstances where noise, light, vibration, or odor emanating from a neighboring property harm the value of your property. Such bases can be objectively verified and quantified. Courts in various states depart, however, on the issue of whether pure unsightliness of a neighboring property, which diminishes the value of your property, supports a cognizable damages claim against the neighboring property owner under the law of nuisance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com