BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut building code 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


    World’s Biggest Crane Gets to Work at British Nuclear Plant

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (08/15/23) – Manufacturing Soars with CHIPS Act, New Threats to U.S. Infrastructure and AI Innovation for One Company

    The Future for Tall Buildings Could Be Greener

    Wage Theft Investigations and Citations in the Construction Industry

    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

    Chicago Criticized for Not Maintaining Elevator Inspections

    St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc.

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Affirms Broker's Liability for Failure to Renew Coverage

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in 2021 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!

    California Court of Appeals Says, “We Like Eich(leay)!”

    New York Appellate Team Obtains Affirmance of Dismissal of Would-Be Labor Law Action Against Municipal Entities

    Three Kahana Feld Attorneys Selected to 2024 NY Metro Super Lawyers Lists

    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

    Miller Act CLAIMS: Finding Protections and Preserving Your Rights

    Fixing the Problem – Not the Blame

    Netherlands’ Developer Presents Modular Homes for Young Professionals

    AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages

    Obtaining Temporary Injunction to Enforce Non-Compete Agreement

    After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

    Alabama Supreme Court States Faulty Workmanship can be an Occurrence

    Gehry-Designed Project Seen Bringing NYC Vibe to L.A.

    Evaluating Construction Trends From 2023 and Forecasting For 2024

    It Ain’t Over Till it’s Over. Why Project Completion in California Isn’t as Straightforward as You Think

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

    Near-Zero Carbon Cement Powers Sustainable 3D-Printed Homes

    David M. McLain to Speak at the CLM Claims College - School of Construction - Scholarships Available

    Fraud, the VCPA and Construction Contracts

    Spearin Doctrine 100 Years Old and Still Thriving in the Design-Build Delivery World

    Structural Defects Lead Schools to Close off Areas

    New York Shuts Down Majority of Construction

    Condominium Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect

    Construction Defect Attorneys Call for Better Funding of Court System

    One-Upmanship by Contractors In Prevailing Wage Decision Leads to a Bad Result for All . . . Perhaps

    1st District Joins 2nd District Court of Appeals and Holds that One-Year SOL Applies to Disgorgement Claims

    ASCE Statement on EPA Lead Pipe and Paint Action Plan

    Building with Recycled Plastics – Interview with Jeff Mintz of Envirolastech

    Falls Requiring Time Off from Work are Increasing

    UK Court Rules Against Bechtel in High-Speed Rail Contract Dispute

    Inspectors Hurry to Make Sure Welds Are Right before Bay Bridge Opening

    America’s Infrastructure Gets a D+

    Florida Extends Filing Time for Claims Subject to the Statute of Repose

    Subcontractors Essential to Home Building Industry

    ISO Proposes New Designated Premises Endorsement in Response to Hawaii Decision

    Equities Favor Subrogating Insurer Over Subcontractor That Performed Defective Work

    Let’s Talk About a Statutory First-Party Bad Faith Claim Against an Insurer

    Anti-Concurrent, Anti-Sequential Causation Clause Precludes Coverage

    New York’s Second Department Holds That Carrier Must Pay Judgment Obtained by Plaintiff as Carrier Did Not Meet Burden to Prove Willful Non-Cooperation

    Lien Release Bonds – Remove Liens, But Not All Liability
    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

    Flint Water Suits Against Engineers Will Go to Trial, Judge Says

    March 14, 2022 —
    A federal judge in Michigan declined on Feb. 7 to accept the contention of engineer Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam Inc. that claims against it for professional negligence in its advisory role to Flint, Mich. ahead of the city's drinking water crisis should not go to trial. The civil case, set for trial on Feb. 15, was brought on behalf of four children who say they suffered neurocognitive harm from exposure to lead in the water supply. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    COVID-19 Win for Policyholders! Court Approves "Direct Physical Loss" Argument

    October 12, 2020 —
    Late last week, a Missouri federal district court provided a significant victory for insurance policyholders for COVID-19 losses. In Studio 417, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company 6:20-cv-03127-SRB (W.D. MO, So. Div., Aug. 12, 2020), the Court was called upon to decide whether allegations involving the presence of COVID-19 in and around physical structures qualify as “direct physical loss or damage” to covered property. For those actively monitoring the COVID-19 insurance coverage litigation landscape, this has been a central question – and hotly contested debate – in virtually all first-party property and business interruption claims. Through a detailed and well-reasoned discussion, the Court answered the question with an emphatic “Yes.” The Plaintiffs – a proposed class of hair salons and restaurants - purchased “all-risk” property insurance policies (the “Policies”) from Cincinnati. The Policies provide that Cincinnati would pay for “direct ‘loss’ unless the ‘loss’ is excluded or limited.” They also defined a “Covered Cause of Loss” as “accidental [direct] physical loss or accidental [direct] physical damage.” The Policies did not contain a virus exclusion. Anecdotally, Cincinnati has been vocal about the general lack of virus exclusions on its standard forms, having recently publicized that the company considers such exclusions “unnecessary” because, in its view, “a virus does not produce direct physical damage or loss to property.” From Cincinnati’s perspective, the insuring agreement is not triggered by these events, so there’s no need to analyze exclusions. Cincinnati relied heavily on that analysis in this case. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Christine Baptiste-Perez, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com Ms. Baptiste-Perez may be contacted at cbp@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Indemnity: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You!

    September 19, 2022 —
    Risk allocation between the parties is a critical component of any construction contract. Indemnity obligations can be some of the important risk-shifting provisions of any design or construction contract. Indemnity provisions typically require one party, the Indemnitor, to agree to “hold harmless,” and/or reimburse another party, the indemnitee, from claims and liability arising out of the party’s work. Considering the financial consequences that an indemnity provision can have on a construction project, it is critical that all parties to a construction contract know the legal implications of the contract indemnity provisions and understand any limitations in enforcing the indemnity provisions depending on the controlling jurisdiction. While most indemnity clauses and obligations are enforceable, many states have enacted anti-indemnity statutes prohibiting or restricting specific indemnification provisions. These anti-indemnity statutes afford protection to contractors and subcontractors not generally in a position to protect themselves from overly extensive indemnity obligations. This article highlights several examples of indemnity provisions typically seen in construction contracts, the measures are taken by a growing number of states to protect parties with less bargaining power in the form of anti-indemnity statutes, and offers practical considerations when negotiating or drafting indemnity provisions.[1] Reprinted courtesy of Caitlin Kicklighter, Emory Law Student (2024 Graduate), (ConsensusDocs) and Bill Shaughnessy, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs) Mr. Shaughnessy may be contacted at bshaughnessy@joneswalker.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences as Affirmative Defense

    January 31, 2018 —

    The doctrine of avoidable consequences is an affirmative defense that can be used in certain property damage lawsuits. This is a defense that does not go to liability, but it goes to damages. This doctrine of avoidable consequences defense holds that a plaintiff cannot recover damages caused by a defendant that the plaintiff could have reasonably avoided . See Media Holdings, LLC v. Orange County, Florida, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D237c (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). Stated differently, if the plaintiff could have reasonably avoided the consequences of the damages caused by the defendant then the plaintiff cannot recover those damages. However, the defendant needs to prove this defense — the burden is on the defendant to establish this defense (ideally through expert testimony).

    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

    Fifth Circuit Decision on Number of Occurrences Underscores Need to Carefully Tailor Your Insurance Program

    December 19, 2018 —
    The Fifth Circuit in Evanston Insurance Co. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co. recently held that multiple collisions caused by the same insured driver over a span of 10 minutes constitute a single occurrence subject to a $1 million limit in the insured’s primary policy with Mid-Continent. The holding reversed a lower court’s ruling that Mid-Continent is liable for an additional sum the excess insurer, Evanston, paid to resolve all of the claims arising from the collisions. At issue, a fundamental question about causation and coverage under commercial liability insurance. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Cherokee Nation Wins Summary Judgment in COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

    February 01, 2021 —
    In a resounding victory for policyholders, an Oklahoma state court granted partial summary judgment for the Cherokee Nation in its COVID-19 business interruption claim. The Cherokee Nation is seeking coverage for losses caused by the pandemic—specifically, the inability to use numerous tribal businesses and services for their intended purpose. Based on the “all risks” nature of the policy and the fortuitous nature of its loss, the Cherokee Nation sought a partial summary judgment ruling that the policies afford business interruption coverage for COVID-19-related losses. The policy provided coverage for “all risk of direct physical loss or damage,” which the Cherokee Nation contended was triggered when the property was “rendered unusable for its intended purpose.” In support of this view, and consistent with established insurance policy interpretation principles, such as providing meaning to every term and reading the policy as a whole, the Cherokee Nation argued that a distinction must exist between “physical loss” and “physical damage.” This distinction demands an interpretation supporting the “intended purpose” reading of the policy language. Thus, the physical presence of COVID-19 depriving the Cherokee Nation of the use of covered property for its intended purpose triggered a covered loss. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Matt Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fall 2024 Legislative Update:

    October 28, 2024 —
    Review of (a) RCW 60.30.010-020, (b) RCW 49.17.530, (c) RCW 19.95.020, (d) RCW 39.116.005, et seq., (e) RCW 36.70B.080, and (f) RCW 39.12.010 and .13 While much of the focus on the recent legislative updates has been on RCW 39.04.360, a number of other legislative changes may also have significant impacts on Washington’s construction industry. Six of these changes are summarized below. A. RCW 60.30.010 and .020 (SSB 6108) – Concerning Retainage on Private Construction, Effective June 6, 2024 Last year, ESSB 5528 imposed restrictions and obligations related to retainage and timing of final payment on private (non-public works) projects. It capped retainage at 5%, required prompt payment on final payments, and required owners to accept a retainage bond on private construction projects, excluding single-family residential construction less than 12 units. This year, SSB 6108 adds suppliers to the statutes (RCW 60.30.010 and 0.020) pertaining to retainage on private construction projects. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

    Will They Blow It Up?

    March 28, 2012 —

    The issues concerning the Harmon Towers building in Las Vegas continue to make their way through the courts. As we noted in a previous piece, Cook County building officials stated that the building could be a hazard if Las Vegas were struck by an earthquake. The question of whether the building will continue to stand is just one of the issues in front of a judge.

    MGM Resorts International argued at a March 13 hearing for permission to implode the Harmon hotel building. They claim that more than 1,700 defects have been discovered in the building and that the building is a public safety hazard. Arguing against demolition, Perini Building Company, the general contractor for the hotel, and its subcontractors are claiming that imploding the building would destroy evidence and prejudice juries in the ongoing construction defect claims. They claim that MGM Resorts wishes to abandon the building due to the economic slowdown. Perini Corp, the contractor for the project, claims that the building can be fixed. Perini claims that MGM’s position in the construction trial would be improved if the building is demolished.

    After Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez heard the four days of testimony on the Harmon Towers building and whether it should be demolished, she scheduled more testimony, with two days in April and an entire week in July. Judge Gonzalez will be deciding whether the building will be torn down, imploded, or left in place.

    Read the full story…

    Read the full story…

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