BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architect
    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


    Insured Fails to Provide Adequate Proof of Water Damage Through Roof

    Foreclosure Deficiency: Construction Loan vs. Home Improvement Loan

    Revel Closing Shows Gambling Is No Sure Thing for Renewal

    Henderson Land to Spend $839 Million on Hong Kong Retail Complex

    California Posts Nation’s Largest Gain in Construction Jobs

    Court of Appeals Invalidates Lien under Dormancy Clause

    The Project “Completion” Paradox in California

    Licensing Reciprocity Comes to Virginia

    Courts Take Another Swipe at the Implied Warranty of the Plans and Specifications

    Water Alone is Not Property Damage under a CGL policy in Connecticut

    Expired Contract Not Revived Due to Sovereign Immunity and the Ex Contractu Clause

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

    Sacramento Army Corps District Projects Get $2.1 Billion in Supplemental Appropriation

    Subcontractor Entitled to Defense for Defective Work Causing Property Damage Beyond Its Scope of Work

    ADA Compliance Checklist For Your Business

    ABC Safety Report: Construction Companies Can Be Nearly 6 Times Safer Than the Industry Average Through Best Practices

    Motion for Summary Judgment Gets Pooped Upon

    Reminder: Your Accounting and Other Records Matter

    Missouri Protects Subrogation Rights

    Contract’s Definition of “Substantial Completion” Does Not Apply to Third Party for Purposes of SOL, Holds Court of Appeal

    #8 CDJ Topic: The Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case Concludes but Controversy Continues

    OSHA Penalties—What Happened with International Nutrition

    Contract Terms Can Impact the Accrual Date For Florida’s Statute of Repose

    Reinsurer Must Reimburse Health Care Organization for Settlement Costs

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    School District Practice Bulletin: Loose Lips Can Sink More Than Ships

    Utilities’ Extreme Plan to Stop Wildfires: Shut Off the Power

    Yellowstone Park Aims for Quick Reopening After Floods

    Crews Tested By Rocky Ground, Utility Challenges

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

    Dusseldorf Evacuates About 4,000 as World War II Bomb Defused

    Key Legal Considerations for Modular Construction Contracts

    Court Upholds Denial of Collapse Coverage Where Building Still Stands

    Construction Industry on the Comeback, But It Won’t Be the Same

    Certain Private Projects Now Fall Under Prevailing Wage Laws. Is Yours One of Them?

    Substitutions On a Construction Project — A Specification Writer Responds

    California Supreme Court Shifts Gears on “Reverse CEQA”

    Indemnification Against Release/“Disposal” of Hazardous Materials

    Because I Haven’t Mentioned Mediation Lately. . .

    Builders Arrested after Building Collapses in India

    Building on New Risks: Construction in the Age of Greening

    Five Years of Great Legal Blogging at Insurance Law Hawaii

    California Supreme Court Rejects Third Exception to Privette Doctrine

    Wisconsin Court Applies the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Negligence Claims for Purely Economic Losses

    Texas and Georgia Are Paying the Price for Sprawl

    Homeowner Who Wins Case Against Swimming Pool Contractor Gets a Splash of Cold Water When it Comes to Attorneys’ Fees

    Man Pleads Guilty in Construction Kickback Scheme

    Angels Among Us

    Should I Pull the Pin? Contractor and Subcontractor Termination for Cause

    Limiting Plaintiffs’ Claims to a Cause of Action for Violation of SB-800
    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

    An Increase of US Metro Areas’ with Normal Housing & Economic Health

    February 05, 2015 —
    According to the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) Eye on Housing, 63 (out of 351) US metropolitan areas have returned to or exceeded their last normal level of housing and economic health—that’s up from 60 last quarter. NAHB reported that “The Leading Markets Index measures a market’s proximity to normal as defined by the level of single-family housing permits, home prices and employment.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Environmental Suit Against Lockheed Martin Dismissed

    August 13, 2014 —
    A federal judge dismissed an environmental suit against Lockheed Martin, finding that contamination levels on the plaintiffs’ Moorestown, New Jersey properties were not high enough to pose a health threat, according to the New Jersey Law Journal. Two owners who live across the street from the plant had “sued under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act and various state statutes.” However, “while the suit was pending, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection raised the threshold for concentration levels of substances such as TCE and PCE to warrant additional testing.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York

    December 20, 2017 —
    On November 20th, the New York Court of Appeals reinstated a case seeking more than six million dollars in damages against the insurers for DHL Worldwide Express Inc. (“DHL”), originating from a fatal head-on car crash between Claudia Carlson and a truck owned by MVP Delivery and Logistics Inc. (“MVP”), a DHL contractor. The truck, which bore DHL’s logo, was owned by MVP and driven by an MVP employee. The MVP employee was running an errand unrelated to his job at the time of the accident. Mrs. Carlson’s husband sued the employee, DHL, and MVP. The jury award of $20 million was reduced to $7.3 million by the Appellate Division. MVP’s insurer paid Mr. Carlson just over $1 million, and the employee assigned his rights to any other insurance coverage to Mr. Carlson Mr. Carlson sued DHL and its insurers, seeking the balance of the outstanding judgment pursuant to New York Insurance Law § 3420. The defendants successfully moved to dismiss Mr. Carlson’s claims, which dismissal was affirmed by the Appellate Division on the basis that § 3420 did not apply since the policies in question were not “issued or delivered” in New York; they had been issued in New Jersey and delivered in Washington and Florida. The Court of Appeals was subsequently presented with two questions: (1) whether the DHL policies fell within the purview of Insurance Law § 3420 as policies “issued or delivered” in New York; and (2) whether MVP was an “insured” pursuant to the “hired auto” provisions of DHL’s policies. Reprinted courtesy of Bethany Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Samantha Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com Ms. Martino may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    June 10, 2015 —
    While some of their claims were dismissed, plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty survived the insurer's motion to dismiss. Senft v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61870 (D. N.J. May 12, 2015). Plaintiffs' waterfront home was insured by Fireman's Fund. Plaintiffs alleged that the broker represented that the policy would provide (1) coverage in the event of a hurricane,(2) the "highest level of protection" offered by Fireman's Fund, and (3) "exceptional" services in the event of a catastrophe. The policy included a 2% hurricane deductible because of the home's proximity to the ocean. Hurricane Sandy badly damaged plaintiffs' home. Plaintiffs alleged that the winds from Sandy battered their home long before the storm surge reached the structure. 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

    Cincinnati Team Secures Summary Judgment for Paving Company in Trip-and-Fall Case

    February 05, 2024 —
    Cincinnati, Ohio (January 25, 2024) - In a recent decision by the Oldham County Circuit Court, Lewis Brisbois Partner Andrew Weber and Associate Jason Paskan obtained summary judgment for a paving company client after successfully arguing that their client did not owe the plaintiff a duty at the time leading up to her trip and fall. Although the court concluded that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether a parking space wheel stop actually caused her fall, the court noted that whether the wheel stop “constituted an unreasonably dangerous condition necessitating a duty to eliminate them or warn of them is an entirely different matter.” Rebecca Reynolds v. Baptist Healthcare System, Inc., et al., Oldham Circuit Court Case No. 21-CI-00236, *6 (Dec. 21, 2023). The plaintiff in Reynolds drove to the hospital with her sister-in-law for medical testing. Id. at * 2. While both had been to the hospital before, due to COVID and construction in the emergency department, they had to take a different entrance into the hospital. Id. In the plaintiff’s attempt to navigate the parking lot, she allegedly tripped over a black wheel stop that was covered by a shadow. Id. The plaintiff sued the hospital as the landowner and the paving company working in the hospital’s parking lot, among others, under the theory that the failure to stripe the wheel stop, closing off spaces with the black wheel stops, or posting warnings about the condition of the parking lot would have prevented her fall. Id. at *2-3. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    BWB&O Partners are Recognized as 2022 AV Preeminent Attorneys by Martindale-Hubbell!

    December 06, 2021 —
    Congratulations to BWB&O Partners on their recognition in Martindale-Hubbell® as AV Preeminent attorneys. This honor is given to attorneys who are ranked at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal expertise, communication skills, and ethical standards by their peers. Newport Beach Partner, Nicole Whyte Newport Beach Partner, Keith Bremer Newport Beach Partner, John Toohey Newport Beach Partner, Jeremy Johnson Woodland Hills Partner, John O'Meara Woodland Hills Partner, Patrick Au Arizona Partner, John Belanger Las Vegas Partner, Peter Brown Las Vegas Partner, Lucian Greco Las Vegas Partner, Anthony Garasi San Diego Partner, Vik Nagpal San Diego Partner, Alexander Giannetto Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Amazon Can be Held Strictly Liable as a Product Seller in New Jersey

    August 07, 2022 —
    On June 29, 2022, in N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Grp. a/s/o Angela Sigismondi v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115826 (Sigismondi), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey held that Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) is a “seller” under New Jersey’s product liability statute and can thus face strict liability for damages caused by products sold on its platform. Although the analysis is state-specific, Sigismondi may serve as an important decision for allowing product defect claims to proceed against Amazon when so often the third-party vendor that lists the product is unlocatable, insolvent, or not subject to the jurisdiction of United States courts. In recent years, Amazon has been fighting product liability claims across the country. Amazon argues it is not a “seller” under states’ product liability laws but is merely an online marketplace that facilitates the sale of products by third-party vendors. What constitutes a “seller” in a particular state must be evaluated state-by-state, but various courts have accepted Amazon’s argument that it is not a “seller.” These decisions are based on Amazon’s level of control in the product sale and often focus on a finding that Amazon did not convey possession of the product or transfer its title. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams
    Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

    Workers Compensation Immunity and the Intentional Tort Exception

    July 02, 2018 —
    In prior articles, I discussed the benefit of workers compensation immunity for contractors. Arguing around workers compensation immunity under the “intentional tort exception” is really hard – borderline impossible, in my opinion. Nevertheless, injured workers still make an attempt to sue a contractor under the intentional tort exception to workers compensation immunity. Most fail based on the seemingly impossible standard the injured worker must prove to establish the intentional tort exception. A less onerous standard (although certainly onerous), as a recent case suggests, appears to be an injured worker suing a co-employee for the injury. 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