BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildings
    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


    The Job is Substantially Complete, the Subcontract was Never Signed, the Subcontractor Wants to be Paid—Now What?

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Attorney Fee Award Under the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act

    Insurer Ordered to Participate in Appraisal

    Finding Highway Compromise ‘Tough,’ DOT Secretary Says

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, Texas

    Unlicensed Contractor Shoots for the Stars . . . Sputters on Takeoff

    CC&Rs Not the Place for Arbitration Agreement, Court Rules

    Dealing with Abandoned Property After Foreclosure

    U.S. District Court for Hawaii Again Determines Construction Defect Claims Do Not Arise From An Occurrence

    Denial of Coverage For Bodily Injury After Policy Period Does Not Violate Public Policy

    Design, Legal and Accounting all Fight a War on Billable Hours After the Advent of AI

    D.R. Horton Profit Beats Estimates as Home Sales Jumped

    Thank You for Seven Years of Election to Super Lawyers

    Should I Stay or Should I Go? The Supreme Court Says “Stay”

    Remote Depositions in the Post-Covid-19 World

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2022 Southern California Rising Stars List

    South Carolina Supreme Court Finds that Consequential Damage Arise From "Occurrence"

    Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back

    Legislation Update: S-865 Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey Passed by Both Houses-Awaiting Governor’s Signature

    NTSB Issues 'Urgent' Recommendations After Mass. Pipeline Explosions

    In Search of Cement Replacements

    Construction Mezzanine Financing

    Summary Judgment in Favor of General Contractor Under Privette Doctrine Overturned: Lessons Learned

    Engineering Report Finds More Investigation Needed of Balconies at New Jersey Condo

    Encinitas Office Obtains Complete Defense Verdict Including Attorney Fees and Costs After Ten Day Construction Arbitration

    Arbitration Denied: Third Appellate District Holds Arbitration Clause Procedurally and Substantively Unconscionable

    Giving Insurance Carrier Prompt Notice of Claim to Avoid “Untimely Notice” Defense

    Shaken? Stirred? A Primer on License Bond Claims in California

    A New Perspective on Mapping Construction Sites with the Crane Camera System

    Effectively Managing Project Closeout: It Ends Where It Begins

    Client Alert: Service Via Tag Jurisdiction Insufficient to Subject Corporation to General Personal Jurisdiction

    Construction Contracts and The Uniform Commercial Code: When Does it Apply and Understanding the Pre-Dominant Factor Test

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions, Four Attorneys Promoted to Partner and One Attorney Promoted to Counsel

    New York Governor Expected to Sign Legislation Greatly Expanding Recoverable Damages in Wrongful Death Actions

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Museums

    DHS Awards Contracts for Border Wall Prototypes

    Residential Construction Rise Expected to Continue

    A Termination for Convenience Is Not a Termination for Default

    Louisiana 13th in List of Defective Bridges

    Is the Event You Are Claiming as Unforeseeable Delay Really Unforeseeable?

    Fannie-Freddie Elimination Model in Apartments: Mortgages

    FBI Makes Arrest Related to Saipan Casino Construction

    Insurer Rejecting Construction Defect Claim Must Share in Defense Costs

    Defending Against the Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine – Liability Considerations

    Crossrail Audit Blames Busted Budget and Schedule on Mismanagement

    Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned

    Wood Wizardry in Oregon: Innovation Raises the Roof for PDX Terminal

    What Are The Most Commonly Claimed Issues In Construction Defect Litigation?

    Who is Responsible for Construction Defect Repairs?
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Hacking Claim Under E&O Policy

    July 25, 2022 —
    On June 9, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held, on summary judgment, that an insured was not entitled to coverage under a Professional Errors and Omissions (E&O) policy for loss allegedly resulting from a hacking incident. See Construction Fin. Admin. Servs., Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., No. 19-0020, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103042 (E.D. Pa. June 9, 2022). Applying North Carolina and Pennsylvania law, the court reasoned that: (1) coverage was barred by the policy’s unauthorized computer access, or “breach,” exclusions; and (2) the insured violated a condition in the policy that required the insurer’s consent to settlements and the violation prejudiced the insurer. The insured, Construction Financial Administration Services, Inc. (CFAS), was a third-party fund administrator for construction contractors. In April 2018, the CFAS received email requests from what it believed to be one of its clients, SWF Constructors (SWF), to disburse $1.3 million from an SWF account to a foreign company. CFAS authorized the payments, despite not having received a copy of any executed agreement between SWF and the foreign company. After the funds were disbursed, SWF advised that it had not authorized or requested the payments to the foreign company. In response, CFAS placed approximately $1.2 million of recovered and borrowed funds into the SWF disbursement account. SWF then sent a letter advising CFAS that the requests from the foreign company did not include documentation required under the contract between SWF and CFAS. It was later determined that the emails had been initiated by a fraudster who had gained unauthorized access to the sender’s email account. Reprinted courtesy of Celestine Montague, White and Williams LLP and Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP Ms. Montague may be contacted at montaguec@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Insurance Costs for New York Schools is Going Up

    December 11, 2013 —
    The cost of construction insurance for New York City’s School Construction Authority is about to go up and the city’s scaffold law is to blame. As the cost of possible injuries has gone up, so has the cost of covering the insurance. The SCA’s current policy ends at the end of the year, and it’s expected that its insurance costs will triple, with the next two years costing about $650 million. The rising cost of insurance was compared by authority officials to the cost of 10 new schools. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Lewis Brisbois Ranks 11th in Law360’s Glass Ceiling Report on Gender Parity in Law Firms

    October 11, 2021 —
    Lewis Brisbois has ranked 11th in Law360’s 2021 Glass Ceiling report, moving up from 37th place in 2020. The report measures female presence and gender parity in law firms, this year evaluating 269 organizations. As described in the Law360 Pulse article titled "Glass Ceiling Report: How Does Your Firm Stack Up?," the publication redesigned its report this year to evaluate female attorneys’ industry standing from a new angle by showing how the percentage of women across three levels within law firms compared with the potential marketplace of hires. This evaluation resulted in the firms’ "pipeline scores," which measure a firm’s percentage points above or below a set of benchmarks assembled with data from the American Bar Association and previous Law360 submissions. Lewis Brisbois’ Los Angeles Co-Managing Partner Jana Lubert and Chief Strategy Officer Janet Eskow, the co-chairs of Lewis Brisbois' Women's Initiative, each expressed excitement about the report, along with resolve to further promote gender diversity. "We are proud that Lewis Brisbois has moved up in these rankings because we have focused diligently on hiring and retaining the best legal talent from a diverse pool of candidates nationwide," Ms. Lubert said. "At the same time, we recognize that there is more to be done to further improve gender equity and inclusion. We remain committed to this important goal, both as it pertains to Lewis Brisbois and to the entire legal industry," she added. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

    February 16, 2017 —
    In Hensley v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., (No. D070259, filed 1/31/17), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that emotional distress damages are available on claims for trespass and nuisance as part of “annoyance and discomfort” damages. In Hensley, plaintiffs sustained fire damage to their home and property during the 2007 California wildfires. The Hensleys were forced to evacuate as the fires advanced. Although their home was not completely destroyed, it sustained significant damage and they were not able to return home permanently for nearly two months. Thereafter, the Hensleys filed suit against San Diego Gas and Electric Company (“SDG&E”) asserting causes of action for trespass and nuisance, among others. Mr. Hensley, who had suffered from Crohn’s disease since 1991, further claimed that as a result of the stress from the fire, he experienced a substantial increase in his symptoms and his treating physician opined that “beyond a measure of reasonable medical certainty... the stress created by the 2007 San Diego fires caused an increase of [Mr. Hensley’s] disease activity, necessitating frequent visits, numerous therapies, and at least two surgeries since the incident.” SDGE moved, in limine, to exclude evidence of Mr. Hensley’s asserted emotional distress damages arguing he was not legally entitled to recover them under theories of trespass and nuisance. The trial court agreed and excluded all evidence of such damages. Reprinted courtesy of Kirsten Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defects through the Years

    July 31, 2013 —
    Builder has an article on the some building changes over the years that have led to construction defect problems. Is insulation evil? Well, that what some thought in the 1930s. Early attempts at insulating walls trapped moisture causing paint to peel. Then in the 1960s, the rise of aluminum wire lead to an even more serious problem: house fires. And it continues. The plastic piping that was though to last forever when it was installed in the late 70s turned out to have about a decade of life. It’s a short forever. Eventually, polybutylene plumbing was forbidden by building codes. The article has a series of building innovations that seemed like great ideas at the time, but were later found to be problematic. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    January 13, 2017 —
    The Supreme Court of Oregon issued a decision at the end of last year which perfectly illustrates the lengths to which a court may go to grant a contractor’s claim for defense from its insurer in a construction defect suit. In West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc.,1 the Court held that a subcontractor’s insurer had a duty to defend a general contractor as an additional insured because the allegations of a homeowner’s association’s complaint could be interpreted to fall within the ambit of coverage provided under the policy—despite the fact that the policy only provided ongoing operations coverage, and despite the fact that the subcontractor was never mentioned in the complaint. The decision is favorable to policyholders but also provides an important lesson: that contractors may avoid additional insured disputes if those contractors have solid contractual insurance requirements for both ongoing and completed operations risks. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com

    These Pioneers Are Already Living the Green Recovery

    June 01, 2020 —
    In the wake of the historic global economic shutdown in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, governments are unleashing trillions of dollars in a bid to create jobs and spur economic recovery. The scale of this stimulus is unprecedented, in some cases amounting to more than 10% of countries’ gross domestic product. At the same time, an overwhelming number of economists, finance ministers, and business leaders are saying that much of that money needs to help—and certainly not hinder—our ability to cut emissions. If that advice is heeded, these funds will go to emerging technologies that would have sounded like science fiction not so long ago. Now they have ambitions to help lower greenhouse gas emissions on an industrial scale. Leading the way is the European Union, which was planning a green transformation even before the outbreak began. It aims to make the 27-member bloc the first carbon neutral continent by 2050, and the pandemic hasn’t changed that. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Laura Millan Lombrana & Akshat Rathi, Bloomberg

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation: A Redux

    January 17, 2013 —
    I previously wrote an article entitled “The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation” for the Common Interests magazine, the monthly periodical of the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Community Associations Institute. In that article, I discussed the potential negative effects of homeowners associations bringing construction defect suits as anything other than a last resort. The purpose of this post is to bring to light, by way of a real life example, the problems discussed in my previous article.
     
    I have recently seen a lawsuit filed by an individual homeowner within a common interest community against the homeowners association, its management company, and the attorneys retained by the association to represent it in a construction defect lawsuit against the original developer, general contractor, and one of the design professionals. In his suit, the homeowner complains that the association’s construction defect attorneys “neglected to amend [their] complaint to include only and specifically the claims for damages for those properties, those buildings or condominium units, either by owner or specific locations, which had sustained damages or had faulty construction for which damages were being sought.” As a result of claiming damages throughout the entire community, the homeowner alleged that the entire community was tarred “with the black brush of litigation.”
     
    As the homeowner explained in his complaint, he purchased a condominium for his daughter-in-law when she moved to Colorado to care for him after the death of his wife. 
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain
    Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com