BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut hospital 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


    When Does a Claim Against an Insurance Carrier for Failing to Defend Accrue?

    New American Home Construction Nears Completion Despite Obstacles

    Top 10 Take-Aways: the ABA Forum's 2024 Mid-Winter Meeting

    Zell Says Homeownership Rate to Fall as Marriages Delayed

    Failure to Allege Property Damage Within Policy Period Defeats Insured's Claim

    No Coverage for Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

    Scope of Alaska’s Dump Lien Statute Substantially Reduced For Natural Gas Contractors

    Global Emissions From Buildings, Construction Climb to Record Levels

    Will The New U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Deal Calm Industry Jitters?

    Why Biden’s Infrastructure Plan Is a Green Jobs Plan

    Connecticut Federal District Court Follows Majority Rule on Insurance Policy Anti-Assignment Clauses

    Federal Court Dismisses Coverage Action in Favor of Pending State Proceeding

    Default Should Never Be An Option

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

    New Safety Standards Issued by ASSE and ANSI

    The Advantages of Virtual Reality in Construction

    The Practical Distinction Between Anticipatory Breach and Repudiation and How to Deal with Both on Construction Projects

    Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes Six Partners and Three Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    California’s Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements: Public Works and AB 3018, What You Need to Know

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Third-Party Defendant

    White House Reverses Trump Administration NEPA Cutbacks

    Insurer Must Defend General Contractor

    #7 CDJ Topic: Truck Ins. Exchange v. O'Mailia

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

    NJ Transit’s Superstorm Sandy Coverage Victory Highlights Complexities of Underwriting Property Insurance Towers

    Condominium Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect

    Harmon Tower Opponents to Try Mediation

    Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Rise to One-Year High

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    Designed to Expose: Beware Lender Certificates

    Ohio Supreme Court Rules That Wrongful Death Claims Are Subject to the Four-Year Statute of Repose for Medical Claims

    No Coverage For Construction Defect Under Illinois Law

    Europe’s Satellites Could Help Catch the Next Climate Disaster

    Understanding Indiana’s New Home Construction Warranty Act

    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP Attorneys to Speak at the 2016 National Construction Claims Conference

    Environmental Justice Update: The Justice40 Initiative

    Arizona Purchaser Dwelling Actions Are Subject to a New Construction

    What Cal/OSHA’s “Permanent” COVID Standards Mean for Employers

    What Contractors Can Do to Address Rising Material Costs

    Homeowners Not Compelled to Arbitration in Construction Defect Lawsuit

    The Biggest Thing Keeping Young Homebuyers out of the Market Isn't Student Debt

    AAA Revises Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures

    Client Alert: Stipulated Judgment For Full Amount Of Underlying Claim As Security For Compromise Settlement Void As Unenforceable Penalty

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured In Northern California Super Lawyers 2021!

    Insurers May Not Be Required to Defend Contractors In a Florida §558 Proceeding

    Cracked Girders Trigger Scrutiny of Salesforce Transit Center's Entire Structure

    Hawaii Federal Court Grants Insured's Motion for Remand

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    Insurance Litigation Roundup: “Post No Bills!”

    California Supreme Court Declines to Create Exception to Privette Doctrine for “Known Hazards”
    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

    Law Firm's Business Income, Civil Authority Claim Due to Hurricanes Survives Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    December 20, 2021 —
    The insurer was unsuccessful in moving for summary judgment on the insured's claim for loss of business income and civil authority coverage due to losses caused by two hurricanes. Townsley v. Ohio Security Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202698 (W.D. La. Oct. 20, 2021). Hurricane Laura struck southeast Louisiana on August 27, 2020 and Hurricane Delta made landfall in the same area on October 9, 2020. Both hurricanes caused property damage and an interruption of business for the insured law firm. Power outages and mandatory evacuation orders caused by both storms created a loss of income for the law firm. Ohio Security denied coverage under the business income, extra expense, and civil authority provisions. The law firm sued and Ohio Security moved for summary judgment. From the undisputed facts, the court could not determine the law firm's entitlement to business income and extra expense coverage, so the motion was denied for these claims. 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

    More on Duty to Defend a Subcontractor

    March 29, 2021 —
    While we don’t often discuss insurance coverage issues here at Construction Law Musings, occasionally a case comes up that makes the grade for a post. One such case was Erie Insurance Exchange v. Salvi, where the question of an “occurrence” that warranted coverage and defense under an insurance policy was at issue. That case discussed this key question in a residential construction context based upon poor workmanship. A recent case out of the Western District of Virginia federal court analyzed this coverage issue in the commercial context. In Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Strongwell Corp., the Court considered a challenge by the insurance company, Nautilus, to its duty to defend based on both the definition of “occurrence” and the definition of “property damage.” Nautilus filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it need not either defend or indemnify because the extrinsic evidence (as distinguished from the “eight corners” of the policy) precluded coverage for the types of claims made by an owner and by extension a general contractor in a separate lawsuit. 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

    Grad Student Sues UC Santa Cruz over Mold in Residence

    November 13, 2013 —
    Matthew Richert, a graduate student at UC Santa Cruz, and his wife have filed a lawsuit against UC Santa Cruz, alleging the residence they rented from the university was contaminated with mold, causing problems for them and their children. The family noticed the signs of mold on the walls, but did not initially connect it with their daughter’s health problems, until they mentioned it to their doctor. The doctor sent a letter to the university requesting that the family be transferred to another unit if the mold problem could not be remedied. Mr. Richert made five such requests. Eventually the university moved the family to a hotel as they investigated the unit. The Richert’s unit remains unoccupied, and a Santa Cruz spokesperson noted that 60 of the units showed mold problems. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    #4 CDJ Topic: Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc.

    December 30, 2015 —
    In the above mentioned case, a Texas architectural firm (HKS Architects, Inc.) hired a California design firm (Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc.) as a sub-consultant, according to Garret Murai of Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP in a post on his California Construction Law Blog. After Vita filed a complaint in California against HKS, HKS filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the landscape design contract included a “Texas forum selection clause.” The court found in favor of Vita, stating that “section 410.42 precludes enforcement of the forum selection clause requiring Vita to litigate its dispute against HKS in Texas.” Read the full story... In their article, “Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of ‘Contractor’ for Forum Selection Clauses,” Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Abigail E. Lighthart and David A. Harris also analyzed the Vita case: “The Vita ruling expands the protections by Section 410.42 beyond traditional ‘builders’ to design professionals and architects who do not actually ‘build’ a project. What remains to be seen is whether other courts will take the expansion to cover other groups that are in any way involved in a construction project.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    How the Cumulative Impact Theory has been Defined

    November 30, 2020 —
    Largely in the federal contract arena, there is a theory referred to as “cumulative impacts” used by a contractor to recover unforeseeable costs associated with a multitude of changes that have an overwhelming ripple effect on its efficiency, particularly efficiency dealing with its original, base contract work. In other words, by dealing with extensive changes, there is an unforeseeable impact imposed on the contractor relative to its unchanged or base contract work. Under this theory, the contractor oftentimes prices its cumulative impact under a total cost approach with an examination on its cost overrun. However, this is not an easy theory to prevail on because there needs to be a focus on the sheer number of changes, causation supporting the impact, and whether there were concurrent impacts or delays that played a role in the ripple effect. See, e.g., Appeals of J.A. Jones Const. Co., ENGBCA No. 6348, 00-2 BCA P 31000 (July 7, 2000) (“However, in the vast majority of cases such claims are routinely denied because there were an insufficient number of changes, contractor-caused concurrent delays, disruptions and inefficiencies and/or a general absence of evidence of causation and impact.”). To best articulate how the cumulative impact theory has been defined, I want to include language directly from courts and board of contract appeals that have dealt with this theory. This way the contractor knows how to best work with their experts with this definition in mind–and, yes, experts will be needed–to persuasively package and establish causation and damages stemming from the multitude of changes. While many of these definitions are worded differently, you will see they have the same focus dealing with the unforeseeable ripple effect of the extensive changes. 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

    Tesla Finishes First Solar Roofs—Including Elon's House

    August 02, 2017 —
    First the Model 3 electric car. Now the solar roof. In just one week, Tesla has challenged two distinct industries with radically new products. Tesla has completed its first solar roof installations, the company reported Wednesday as part of a second-quarter earnings report. Just like the first Model 3 customers, who took their keys last week, the first solar roof customers are Tesla employees. By selling to them first, Tesla says it hopes to work out any kinks in the sales and installation process before taking it to a wider public audience. “I have them on my house, JB has them on his house,” Musk said, referring to Tesla’s Chief Technology Officer J.B. Straubel. “This is version one. I think this roof is going to look really knock-out as we just keep iterating.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Randall, Bloomberg

    Is The Enforceability Of A No-Damage-For-Delay Provision Inappropriate For Summary Judgment

    February 24, 2020 —
    Is the enforceability of a no-damage-for-delay provision inappropriate for resolution on a summary judgment? The recent decision in U.S. f/u/b/o Kingston Environmental Services, Inc. v. David Boland, Inc., 2019 WL 6178676 (D. Hawaii 2019), dealing with Florida law, suggests that it is inappropriate for a summary judgment resolution, particularly when there is a right to a jury trial. In this case, a prime contractor was hired on a federal construction project in Hawaii. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor and the subcontractor sued the prime contractor and its surety under the Miller Act. Of interest, the subcontractor was seeking to recover for the costs it incurred due to construction delays. The prime contractor moved for summary judgment as to the no-damage-for-delay provision in the subcontract. The no-damages-for-delay provision read as follows (and it is a well-written no-damage-for-delay provision): The Subcontractor expressly agrees that the Contractor shall not be liable to the Subcontractor for any damages or additional costs, whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, resulting in whole or in part from a delay, hindrance, suspension, or acceleration of the commencement or execution of the Work, caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions, whether negligent or not, of the Contractor including other subcontractors or material suppliers to the Project, its agents, employees, or third parties acting on behalf of the Contractor. The Subcontractor’s sole remedy for any such delay, hindrance, suspension, or acceleration shall be a noncompensable time extension. 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

    A Special CDJ Thanksgiving Edition

    November 21, 2017 —
    Welcome to the Construction Defect Journal’s special Thanksgiving edition. The CDJ staff has compiled the most important and interesting stories so far from 2017. From Supreme Court decisions to state construction defect law shake ups, this week’s edition showcases significant construction defect industry changes. With a mug of hot spiced cider in hand, relax and reflect on what has happened in our industry so far in 2017. CDJ wishes to give thanks to its amazing contributors and readers. It’s due to your efforts and support that CDJ is able to present a weekly summary of what is happening in the construction defect industry. We hope you enjoy this special edition, and wish you and your family a fun and festive Thanksgiving holiday. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of