BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield 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


    Pentagon Has Big Budget for Construction in Colorado

    Construction Firm Sues City and Engineers over Reservoir Project

    Former Owner Not Liable for Defects Discovered After Sale

    Lost Productivity or Inefficiency Claim Can Be Challenging to Prove

    How A Contractor Saved The Day On A Troubled Florida Condo Project

    Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case

    White and Williams Celebrates 125th Anniversary

    The American Rescue Plan Act: What Restaurants Need to Act on NOW

    Construction Law Alert: Concrete Supplier Botches Concrete Mix, Gets Thrashed By Court of Appeal for Trying to Blame Third Party

    Insurer Must Defend General Contractor

    Is the Obsession With Recordable Injury Rates a Deadly Safety Distraction?

    Guessing as to your Construction Damages is Not the Best Approach

    Federal Magistrate Judge Recommends Rescission of Policies

    New Green Standards; Same Green Warnings for Architects & Engineers (law note)

    No Friday Night Lights at $60 Million Texas Stadium: Muni Credit

    Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage

    60-Mile-Long Drone Inspection Flight Points to the Future

    Parol Evidence can be Used to Defeat Fraudulent Lien

    Erasing Any Doubt: Arizona FED Actions Do Not Accrue Until Formal Demand for Possession is Tendered

    Nevada Insureds Can Rely on Extrinsic Facts to Show that An Insurer Owes a Duty to Defend

    Vacation during a Project? Time for your Construction Documents to Shine!

    Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage

    Man Pleads Guilty in Construction Kickback Scheme

    Miller Law Firm Helped HOA Recover for Construction Defects without Filing a Lawsuit

    Florida Enacts Property Insurance Overhaul for Benefit of Policyholders

    Florida's New Pre-Suit Notification Requirement: Retroactive or Prospective Application?

    99-Year-Old Transmission Tower Seen as Possible Cause of Devastating Calif. Wildfire

    Dealing with Abandoned Property After Foreclosure

    Fifth Circuit Concludes Government’s CAA Legal Claims are Time-Barred But Injunctive-Relief Claims are Not

    Wearable Ways to Work in Extreme Heat

    Liability Policy’s Arbitration Endorsement Applies to Third Party Beneficiaries, Including Additional Insureds

    The Value of Photographic Evidence in Construction Litigation

    Washington Trial Court Narrows Definition of First Party Claimant, Clarifies Available Causes of Action in Commercial Property Loss Context

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds Lay Witness Can Provide Opinion Testimony on the Value of a Property If the Witness Had an Opportunity to Form a Reasoned Opinion

    U.S. Government Bans Use of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements between Nursing Homes and Residents, Effective November 28, 2016

    Avoid L&I Violations by Following Appropriate Safety Procedures

    Tips for Contractors Who Want to Help Rebuild After the California Wildfires

    Colorado Supreme Court Grants the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes

    Insurer's Daubert Challenge to Insured's Expert Partially Successful

    Two Years, Too Late: Time-Barred Hurricane Loss is Timely Reminder to Insureds

    After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

    “Positive Limiting Barriers” Are An Open and Obvious Condition, Relieving Owner of Duty to Warn

    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

    Wyoming Supreme Court Picks a Side After Reviewing the Sutton Rule

    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

    CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

    Homebuilder Immunity Act Dies in Committee. What's Next?

    Orange County Team Obtains Unanimous Defense Verdict in Case Involving Failed Real Estate Transaction

    2019’s Biggest Labor and Employment Moves Affecting Construction

    Default Should Never Be An Option
    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

    Sun, Sand and Stir-Fry? Miami Woos Chinese for Property: Cities

    February 18, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- Miami has a Little Havana and Little Haiti, a neighborhood known as Westonzuela and even the Venetian Islands. What it doesn’t have is a Chinatown. Shan-Jie Li wants to do something about it. The developer from the city of Linyi in China’s wintry northeast aims to make Florida’s most-populous metropolitan area, with its clean beaches and tropical climate, a destination for Chinese property investors. “We are focused on bringing to Miami the new wave of Chinese who are wealthy and educated,” Li said in a phone interview via a translator. “The environment in Miami makes for a very suitable lifestyle. Playing golf and going to the beach are huge attractions.” Reprinted courtesy of Blake Schmidt, Bloomberg and Bill Faries, Bloomberg Mr. Schmidt may be contacted at bschmidt16@bloomberg.net; Mr. Faries may be contacted at wfaries@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hawaii Federal Court Grants Insured's Motion for Remand

    January 12, 2015 —
    The federal district court, district of Hawaii, recently granted the insured's motion for remand. Catholic Foreign Mission Society of Am., Inc. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., Civ. No. 14-00420, Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Remand and Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Transfer (D. Haw. Dec. 30, 2014) [Order here]. [Full disclosure - our office represents the insured, Maryknoll]. Maryknoll was sued in several lawsuits filed in Hawaii state court by victims of alleged sexual abuse occurring as far back as the 1950s by members of the clergy. Maryknoll was insured during these periods under liability policies issued by various carriers. The successor of Royal Globe Insurance Company, Arrowood Indemnity Company, agreed to defend some of the underlying lawsuits, but declined to defend others. The Travelers Companies, Inc. refused to defend. 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

    Pollution Created by Business Does Not Deprive Insured of Coverage

    November 26, 2014 —
    The federal district court determined that coverage was properly denied under the pollution exclusion of the policies. Headwaters Resources, Inc. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20060 (10th Cir. Oct. 20, 2014). Over 400 residents of Chesapeake, Virginia, filed two lawsuits against the insured, Headwaters, alleged property damage and bodily injury due to pollution generated in connection with the development of a golf course. The complaints alleged that between 2002 and 2007, the defendants used 1.5 million tons of toxic fly ash during construction of a golf course. The insured allegedly transported the fly ash to an open pit adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The chemicals from the fly ash leached into the ground water, damaging the private wells. The fly ash pit also released airborne contaminants that produced a strong smell of ammonia. As a result of the alleged contamination, the property values of plaintiffs' homes depreciated and members of the community faced increased risk of serious bodily injuries caused by exposure to the fly ash. 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

    Electrical Subcontractor Sues over Termination

    November 13, 2013 —
    Millennium Plus, Inc. has sued the contractor for the Efrain A. Duran Water Treatment Plant Facility and Rio Grande City for failing to pay money due to them and terminating the contract. According to the lawsuit, Millennium is claiming that they are owed $161,781 for their work on the water treatment facility. According to the city, the project’s contractor was “very unsatisfied with Millennium’s work.” Although the city disclaims any involvement, Millennium claims it was a “joint enterprise.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Federal Court Dismisses Coverage Action in Favor of Pending State Proceeding

    October 12, 2020 —
    The federal district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the coverage action that was parallel to a case pending in state court involving the same parties and same issues pending. Navigators Ins, Co. v. Chriso's Tree Trimming, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129711 (E.D. Calif. July 22, 2020). Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) entered into a tree, brush and wood removal contract with Mount F Enterprises, Inc. Mountain F subsequently entered into a subcontractor agreement with Chriso Tree Trimming, Inc. for work to be performed for PG&E. In August 2017, Chriso attempted to remove a tree, but the tree accidentally fell in the wrong direction and knocked down nearby powerlines. The powerlines came into contact with surrounding brush and started the "Railroad Fire." The fire was eventually contained on September 15, 2017, after 12, 407 acres were burned and 7 structures and 7 homes were destroyed. Five subrogation lawsuits were filed in state court against Chriso and Mountain F by various insurance companies that paid for the damage caused by the Railroad Fire. A policy limits demand to settle all claims against Chriso and Mountain F was made. Navigators insured Chriso for $9 million through a Commercial Excess Liability Policy, payable once all other insurance was exhausted. The policy included a "Professional Services Endorsement" (PSE Exclusion) that excluded coverage of "professional services." "Professional services" was defined through a list of 12 non-exclusive professions and services that generally referred to activities involving specialized knowledge or skill that was predominantly mental or intellectual in nature rather than physical or manual. 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

    Serial ADA Lawsuits Targeting Small Business Owners

    February 04, 2014 —
    Jennifer Wadsworth reports in the San Jose Inside that small business owners in the South Bay area of California have been targeted for ADA Compliance lawsuits. Specifically, John Ho, “a wheelchair-bound paraplegic from the Southern California town of Rosemead” has hit close to “80 businesses in San Jose and more throughout South Bay” with ADA complaints. Another resident, Cecil Shaw has also “filed hundreds of lawsuits in federal court through a San Jose-based law firm alleging similar violations.” According to Wadsworth, these lawsuits have “become a multimillion-dollar industry.” Communities are often hit with “a hundred or more” lawsuits at a time: “Law firms team up with disabled clients to inspect businesses for compliance issues, and then sue in droves, expecting half or more defendants to settle out of court.” Niccandro Barrita, owner of one of four La Victoria Mexican Restaurants in South Bay, lost an ADA lawsuit. “I thought because when the building was remodeled in 1996 and the city waived the lift requirement that I was in the clear. But that wasn’t the case,” he told San Jose Inside. Barrita claims to have paid $900,000 in attorney fees. His advice to other owners is to be proactive: “Don’t rely on someone to point out a deficiency to you. Find out for yourself if you’re compliant.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer

    October 12, 2020 —
    Property insurance policies (first party insurance policies) contain post-loss obligations that an insured must (and should) comply with otherwise they risk forfeiting insurance coverage. One post-loss obligation is the insurer’s right to request the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss. Not complying with a post-loss obligation such as submitting a sworn proof of loss can lead to unnecessary headaches for the insured. Most of the times the headache can be avoided. Even with a sworn proof of loss, there is a way to disclaim the finality of damages and amounts included by couching information as estimates or by affirming that the final and complete loss is still unknown while you work with an adjuster to quantify the loss. The point is, ignoring the obligation altogether will result in a headache that you will have to deal with down the road because the property insurer will use it against you and is a headache that is easily avoidable. And, it will result in an added burden to you, as the insured, to demonstrate the failure to comply did not actually cause any prejudice to the insurer. By way of example, in Prem v. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2044a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), the insured notified their property insurer of a plumbing leak in the bathroom. The insurer requested for the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss per the terms of the insured’s property insurance policy. The insurer follow-up with its request for a sworn proof of loss on a few occasions. None was provided and the insured filed a lawsuit without ever furnishing a sworn proof of loss. The insurer moved for summary judgment due the insured’s failure to comply with the post-loss obligations, specifically by not submitting a sworn proof of loss, and the trial court granted the insurer’s motion. Even at the time of the summary judgment hearing, the insured still did not submit a sworn proof of loss. 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

    Structural Engineer Found Liable for Defects that Rendered a Condominium Dangerously Unsafe

    June 22, 2016 —
    On May 3, 2016, the Washington State Court of Appeals affirmed a jury’s verdict in favor of a condominium HOA against a structural engineer for $1,149,332 in damages.[1] The project in question was The Pointe, an upscale condominium building in Westport, Washington. The developer was Dodson-Duus, LLC. The architect was Elkins Architects (“Elkins”). The structural engineer was Engineers Northwest, Inc. (“ENW”). ENW contracted with Elkins for the structural engineering work. Birds flying past 3 construction cranesBoth the design and construction of the building suffered from defects. In particular, the lateral force resistance system was insufficient to withstand a large seismic event. The defects included improperly nailed shear walls, weak connections between shear walls and floor joists, improperly-sized floor sheathing, a weak second-floor diaphragm, and omitted hold-downs connecting shear walls to a steel beam. The use of gypsum sheathing also created a risk of corrosion to the building’s steel structure. Evidence tied each of these defects to some aspect of ENW’s structural calculations and designs. Evidence also tied omission of the hold-downs to the contractor’s construction decisions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Paul R. Cressman, Jr., Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Cressman may be contacted at pcressman@ac-lawyers.com