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


    Liability Coverage for Claims of Publishing Secret Data Does Not Require Access by Others

    Property Owner’s Defense Goes Up in Smoke in Careless Smoking Case

    Explore Legal Immigration Options for Construction Companies

    Hunton Insurance Recovery Partner Michael Levine Quoted on Why Courts Must Consider the Science of COVID-19

    Eleven WSHB Attorneys Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Recognized Among The Top 50 Construction Law Firms TM of 2024 by Construction Executive

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Remands Bad Faith Claim Against Title Insurer

    Supreme Court Holds That Prevailing Wage Statute is Constitutional

    Bertha – The Tunnel is Finished, but Her Legacy Continues

    Haight Welcomes Elizabeth Lawley

    Colorado Supreme Court Decision Could Tarnish Appraisal Process for Policyholders

    Flood Policy Does Not Cover Debris Removal from Property

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Sudden Death”

    Texas Jury Awards $5.3 Million to Company Defamed by Union: Could it work in Pennsylvania?

    Sweet News for Yum Yum Donuts: Lost Goodwill is Not an All or Nothing Proposition

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

    Should CGL Insurer have Duty to Defend Insured During Chapter 558 Notice of Construction Defects Process???

    Lewis Brisbois Successfully Concludes Privacy Dispute for Comedian Kathy Griffin Following Calif. Supreme Court Denial of Review

    As Some States Use the Clean Water Act to Delay Energy Projects, EPA Issues New CWA 401 Guidance

    Arkansas: Avoiding the "Made Whole" Doctrine Through Dépeçage

    Brooklyn’s Hipster Economy Challenges Manhattan Supremacy

    Landlords Beware: Subordination Agreements

    Top Developments March 2024

    Circumstances In Which Design Professional Has Construction Lien Rights

    At Least 23 Dead as Tornadoes, Severe Storms Ravage South

    The National Labor Relations Board Joint Employer Standard is Vacated by the Eastern District of Texas

    World-Famous Architects Design $480,000 Gazebos for Your Backyard

    Latosha Ellis Joins The National Black Lawyers Top 40 Under 40

    SNC-Lavalin’s Former Head of Construction Pleads Guilty to Bribery, Money Laundering

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Best Practices After Receiving Notice of a Construction Claim

    Negligence of Property Appraiser

    A Survey of New Texas Environmental Laws

    Certified Question Asks Hawaii Supreme Court to Determine Coverage for Allegations of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

    Can a Non-Union Company Be Compelled to Arbitrate?

    Four Key Steps for a Successful Construction Audit Process

    CDJ’s #10 Topic of the Year: Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216.

    Timely Written Notice to Insurer and Cooperating with Insurer

    Automating Your Home? There’s an App for That

    ‘Hallelujah,’ House Finally Approves $1T Infrastructure Funding Package

    Federal District Court Declines Invitation to Set Scope of Appraisal

    Caveat Emptor (“Buyer Beware!”) Exceptions

    US Supreme Court Backs Panama Canal Owner in Dispute with Builders

    The Pitfalls of Oral Agreements in the Construction Industry

    Battle of Experts Cannot Be Decided on Summary Judgment

    Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (6/26/24) – Construction Growth in Office and Data Center Sectors, Slight Ease in Consumer Price Index and Increased Premiums for Commercial Buildings

    SkenarioLabs Uses AI for Property Benchmarking

    The Requirement to Post Collateral Under General Agreement of Indemnity Is Real

    Recovering Unabsorbed Home Office Overhead Due to Delay
    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

    Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings

    March 19, 2014 —
    In Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assoc. v. Superior Court (No. D064567, March 12, 2014), the California Court of Appeal held a homeowners association’s (“HOA”) litigation meetings related to the HOA’s construction defect lawsuit were subject to protection under the attorney-client privilege. Specifically, the court concluded the common interest doctrine applied to the subject litigation meetings, thereby barring the defendants in the HOA’s lawsuit from seeking discovery related to the content and disclosures made during those meetings. The plaintiff HOA initiated a construction defect lawsuit against a residential developer and builder, seeking damages for construction defects related to common areas. The defendants took the depositions of individual homeowners and inquired regarding the communications and disclosures made at informational litigation update meetings. The meetings were conducted by the HOA’s counsel with groups of homeowners, some of whom had filed their own, separate lawsuits against the same defendants. Motions to compel were filed after attorney-client privilege objections were asserted by counsel for the HOA. After the court-appointed discovery referee opined that the common interest doctrine applied and that the communications presented at the meetings were subject to the attorney-client privilege, the trial court rejected this recommendation and overruled the HOA’s privilege objections. The HOA filed a petition for a writ of mandate. The defendants argued the privilege had been waived based on the presence of persons who were not the clients of the HOA’s attorney, that the subject communications were not “confidential communications” and that the individual homeowners and the HOA did not share common interests at the time. After setting forth a comprehensive discussion of the statutory principles underlying the attorney-client privilege and the bases for waiver, as provided in California Evidence Code §§ 912 and 952, and summarizing applicable decisional law, the court specifically analyzed the question of whether the common interest doctrine applied in the context of the disputed HOA litigation meetings. The common interest doctrine protects confidential communications made by counsel to third parties if the third parties are present to further the interest of the client or are those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer was consulted. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Steven M. Cvitanovic, and Michael C. Parme of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com, and Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Release Of “Unknown” Claim Does Not Bar Release Of “Unaccrued” Claim: Fair Or Unfair?

    July 15, 2019 —
    A general release of “unknown” claims through the effective date of the release does NOT bar “unaccrued” claims. This is especially important when it comes to fraud claims where the facts giving rise to the fraud may have occurred prior to the effective date in the release, but a party did not learn of the fraud until well after the effective date in the release. A recent opinion maintained that a general release that bars unknown claims does NOT mean a fraud claim will be barred since the last element to prove a fraud had not occurred, and thus, the fraud claim had not accrued until after the effective date in the release. See Falsetto v. Liss, Fla. L. Weekly D1340D (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“The 2014 [Settlement] Agreement’s plain language released the parties only from “known or unknown” claims, not future or unaccrued claims. Because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the fraud claim had accrued — that is, whether Falsetto [party to Settlement Agreement] knew or through the exercise of due diligence should have known about the alleged fraud at the time the 2014 Agreement was executed — the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on those fraud claims.”). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Multiple Occurrences Found For Claims Against Supplier of Asbestos Products

    May 07, 2015 —
    The federal district court found that various claims for bodily injury against a supplier of asbestos products arose from multiple occurrences, increasing indemnity amounts available under the policy. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45437 (N.D. Ohio April 7, 2015). Mahoning Valley Supply Company (MVS) was sued by numerous claimants who alleged that they had been injured by asbestos-containing products manufactured by third parties, but supplied by MVS. The claimants alleged exposure to asbestos fibers at a variety of job sites, on numerous dates, and under a variety of conditions. Two insurers shared defense and indemnity costs. In 2013, Continental informed MVS that the three policies issued to MVS were nearly exhausted. Therefore, the parties disputed whether MVS' asbestos claims arose out of a single "occurrence" rather than multiple occurrences. The policies 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 R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    West Virginia Wild: Crews Carve Out Corridor H Through the Appalachian Mountains

    May 08, 2023 —
    When crews with Kokosing Construction Co. began a $209-million design-build contract—the largest of its kind in West Virginia—in 2015, they first had to build roads in order to build the actual road called Corridor H. Reprinted courtesy of Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Does Arbitration Apply to Contemporaneously Executed Contracts (When One of the Contracts Does Not Have an Arbitration Provision)?

    January 10, 2018 —

    Binding arbitration is an alternative to litigation. Instead of having your dispute decided by a judge and/or jury, it is decided by an arbitrator through an arbitration process. Arbitration, however, is a creature of contract, meaning there needs to be a contractual arbitration provision requiring the parties to arbitrate, and not litigate, their dispute. Just like litigation, there are pros and cons to the arbitration process, oftentimes dictated by the specific facts and legal issues in the case.

    What happens when a person executes two (or more) contemporaneous contracts, one with an arbitration provision and one without? Are the parties required to arbitrate the dispute arising out of the contract that does not contain the arbitration provision?

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Manhattan to Add Most Office Space Since ’90 Over 3 Years

    June 18, 2014 —
    Manhattan is poised to add the most office space in any three-year period since 1990 as projects including buildings at Hudson Yards and the World Trade Center site are completed, the New York Building Congress said. The borough, home to the largest U.S. office market, probably will add 9 million square feet (836,000 square meters) of office space at nine development sites from last year through 2015, according to the organization, which promotes construction in the New York City area. An additional 10 million square feet at six buildings is likely to become available from 2016 through 2018, the group said in a statement today. “It’s a vote of confidence in the market, which we think is long overdue,” Richard T. Anderson, president of the New York Building Congress, said in a telephone interview. “As a global center of finance and office-related functions, the city needs to regenerate its office space.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan LaMantia, Bloomberg
    Mr. LaMantia may be contacted at jlamantia1@bloomberg.net

    Oregon Duty to Defend Triggered by Potential Timing of Damage

    June 28, 2013 —
    The Oregon Supreme Court has concluded that if it is possible that damage could have occurred prior to the completion of the project, then the policies in effect at that time are triggered. John Green of Farella Braun + Martel LLP writes that “we have long argued that, since the duty to defend exists if there is any ‘potential’ of covered liability, there is a potential that damage happened before that project was completed, or at any time after completion, triggering all policies in that time frame.” The Oregon court concluded that if property damage could have happened during construction, the insuerer had a duty to defend and “the insured had no burden to establish any additional facts to support that potential.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Another Smart Home Innovation: Remote HVAC Diagnostics

    June 17, 2015 —
    Builder magazine reported that “smart home technology manufacturer Nexia Home Intelligence now offers monitoring of a home’s HVAC system even when owners are away. If an issue arises, it can be fixed quickly, sometimes without a service call, the company says.” The service is available “with Trane and American Standard Wi-Fi-enabled thermostats” and requires a free Nexia account. System alerts are automatically transmitted to the dealer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of