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


    Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Action Violation

    Florida’s New Civil Remedies Act – Bulletpoints As to How It Impacts Construction

    Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Meaning of "Living in the Same Household" for Purposes of Coverage Under a Homeowners Policy

    Thirteen Payne & Fears Attorneys Honored by Best Lawyers

    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

    Bond Principal Necessary on a Mechanic’s Lien Claim

    Haight Welcomes New Attorneys to Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco

    California Assembly Passes Expedited Dam Safety for Silicon Valley Act

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold Due to Insurer

    Colorado Court of Appeals Confirms Senior Living Communities as “Residential Properties” for Purposes of the Homeowner Protection Act

    Insured's Collapse Claim Survives Summary Judgment

    Landmark Contractor Licensing Case Limits Disgorgement Remedy in California

    The Cross-Party Exclusion: The Hazards of Additional Named Insured Provisions

    There’s the 5 Second Rule, But Have You Heard of the 5 Year Rule?

    Did New York Zero Tolerance Campaign Improve Jobsite Safety?

    Private Mediations Do Not Toll The Five-Year Prosecution Statute

    Chinese Drywall Manufacturer Claims Product Was Not for American Market

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2021 Top Lawyers by Hudson Valley Magazine

    COVID-19 Pandemic Preference Amendments to Bankruptcy Code Benefiting Vendors, Customers, Commercial Landlords and Tenants

    English v. RKK. . . The Saga Continues

    Arizona Is Smart About Water. It Should Stay That Way.

    Yet ANOTHER Reason not to Contract without a License

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Sub-Contractor

    Seattle’s Tallest Tower Said Readying to Go On the Market

    Primer Debuts on Life-Cycle Assessments of Embodied Carbon in Buildings

    Busting Major Alternative-Lending Myths

    Insurance Coverage for COVID-19? Two N.J. Courts Allow Litigation to Proceed

    State Farm Unsuccessful In Seeking Dismissal of Qui Tam Case

    Construction in the Time of Coronavirus

    Distressed Home Sales Shrinking

    Las Vegas HOA Conspiracy & Fraud Case Delayed Again

    Utah’s Highest Court Holds That Plaintiffs Must Properly Commence an Action to Rely on the Relation-Back Doctrine to Overcome the Statute of Repose

    Environmental Roundup – April 2019

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Sub-Contracted Electrical Company

    Take Advantage of AI and Data Intelligence in Construction

    How the California and Maui Wildfires Will Affect Future Construction Projects

    New Jersey School Blames Leaks on Construction Defects, May Sue

    Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    Construction Worker Falls to His Death at Kyle Field

    Court of Appeals Expands Application of Construction Statute of Repose

    No Coverage for Installation of Defective Steel Framing

    Traub Lieberman Partner Stephen Straus Wins Spoliation Motion in Favor of Defendant

    Congratulations to BWB&O for Ranking #4 in Orange County Business Journal’s 2023 Book of Lists for Law Firms!

    Construction Contract Clauses Only a Grinch Would Love – Part 4

    Steel Makeover Under Way for Brooklyn's Squibb Footbridge

    Appeals Court Explains Punitive Damages Awards For Extreme Reprehensibility Or Unusually Small, Hard-To-Detect Or Hard-To-Measure Compensatory Damages

    You Say Tomato, I Say Tomahto. But When it Comes to the CalOSHA Appeals Board, They Can Say it Any Way They Please

    Skanska Found Negligent for Damages From Breakaway Barges

    West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar Announced for 2014
    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. Leveraging 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

    Connecticut Reverses Course for Construction Managers on School Projects

    August 05, 2024 —
    On June 6, 2024, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed into law Public Act 24-151 (H.B. 5524) (Bill 5524). Bill 5524 authorized and adjusted bonds of the state and provisions related to state and municipal tax administration, as well as addressed school building projects. Notably, Bill 5524 removed the ban on construction managers self-performing work on public school construction projects, effective July 1, 2024. Allowing construction managers to self-perform certain portions of the work, such as general trades, subject to the standard bidding requirements, is a common industry practice that, theoretically, reduces total project costs by reducing the amount of subcontracted work. However, proponents of banning self-performance argue that construction managers have too much information to bid fairly and competitively. Reprinted courtesy of Anand Gupta, Robinson+Cole Mr. Gupta may be contacted at agupta@rc.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sacramento’s Commercial Construction Market Heats Up

    September 10, 2014 —
    One reason I changed law firms from the Bay Area to Sacramento was I felt that Sacramento’s construction market, which was one of the areas hardest hit in California following the Real Estate Bubble Burst, was poised for a comeback. And as with past real estate cycles, residential construction has led the growth, and is now being followed by commercial construction. Indeed, according to data compiled by Engineering News-Record, commercial and institutional projects are propelling Sacramento’s construction market[.] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

    Triable Issue of Fact Exists as to Insurer’s Obligation to Provide Coverage Under Occurrence Policy

    March 08, 2021 —
    In Guastello v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co. (No. G057714. filed 2/19/21 ord. pub. 2/23/21), a California appeals court held that triable issues of material fact exist which precluded summary judgment for an insurer seeking to disclaim coverage on the basis that the “occurrence” pre-dated the policy period where a dispute exists as to the timing of the subject “occurrence.” In Guastello, a subcontractor built retaining walls from 2003 to 2004 for a housing development in Dana Point, California. In 2010, one of these retaining walls collapsed causing damage to a residential lot owned by Thomas Guastello. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kathleen E.M. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kemoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred By Exclusion j (5)

    April 15, 2015 —
    The Texas Court Appeal reversed a trial court judgment which found coverage in favor of the contractor based upon exclusion j(5). Dallas Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Calitex Corp., 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2002 (Tex. Ct. App. March 3, 2015). Turnkey Residential Group, Inc., was the contractor to construct a twelve-unit townhome complex in Dallas. The owner of the project was Calitex Corporation. Construction began on November 2006. The project was to be completed by Turnkey by October 27, 2007. Calitex filed suit against Turnkey and some of its subcontractors in February 2008. Calitex alleged problems with Turnkey's work included: (1) the stone exterior was not properly treated and leaked, and some areas were left uncovered with stone; and (2) windows leaked. It was further alleged that the quality of materials, labor and craftsmanship did not meet the standards of the contract and resulted in damages. Turnkey submitted a notice of claim to its insurer, Dallas National Insurance Company (DNIC). Coverage was denied. 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

    County Sovereign Immunity Invokes Change-Order Ordinance

    December 20, 2017 —
    The recent case of Fulton County v. Soco Contracting Company, Inc. addresses two very interesting questions for local government attorneys. First, can a county ordinance bolster a defense of sovereign immunity against a contractor’s claims? Second, can a county waive sovereign immunity by failing to respond to Requests for Admission? Facts: County hired Contractor to construct a facility near the airport. The contract provided that change orders must satisfy a county ordinance, which required approval by the Board of Commissioners. But in emergency situations, the County Manager could approve change orders, as long as the contractor executes a proposed modification and the purchasing agent approves it. The project suffered substantial delays, which Contractor attributed to weather, design delays, delays by the County in providing decisions on changes, and delays in obtaining permits during the federal government’s shutdown. As a result of these issues, Contractor comes County changed the scope of the contract. Contractor asserted claims against County for the delays and the changes to the work. The appellate opinion addresses the change order claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lizbeth Dison, Autry Hall & Cook, LLP

    Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Water Infrastructure Bill

    November 06, 2018 —
    Congress has approved major water infrastructure legislation that authorizes $3.7 billion for new Army Corps of Engineers civil-works projects and $4.4 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency drinking-water program. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

    New Illinois Supreme Court Trigger Rule for CGL Personal Injury “Offenses” Could Have Costly Consequences for Policyholders

    March 09, 2020 —
    The Illinois Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sanders v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., 2019 IL 124565 (2019), announced the standard for triggering general liability coverage for malicious prosecution claims under Illinois law. In its decision, the court construed what appears to be a policy ambiguity against the policyholder in spite of the longstanding rule of contra proferentem, limiting coverage to policies in place at the time of the wrongful prosecution, and not the policies in effect when the final element of the tort of malicious prosecution occurred (i.e. the exoneration of the plaintiff). The net result of the court’s ruling for policyholders susceptible to such claims is that coverage for jury verdicts for malicious prosecution – awarded in today’s dollars – is limited to the coverage procured at the time of the wrongful prosecution, which may (as in this case) be decades old. Such a scenario can have costly consequences for policyholders given that the limits procured decades ago are often inadequate due to the ever-increasing awards by juries as well as inflation. Moreover, it may be difficult to locate the legacy policies and the insurers that issued such policies may no longer be solvent or even exist. A copy of the decision can be found here. The Sanders case arose out of the wrongful conviction of Rodell Sanders in 1994 by the City of Chicago Heights (the “City”). Mr. Sanders sought recompense for, among other things, malicious prosecution through a federal civil rights action against the City. In September 2016, Mr. Sanders obtained a consent judgment for $15 Million; however, at the time of the wrongful conviction, seventeen years earlier, the City’s only applicable insurance policy provided just $3 million in coverage. The City contributed another $2 million towards the judgment and, in exchange for Mr. Sanders’s agreement not to seek the $10 million balance from the City, assigned its rights under the policies for the 2012 to 2014 period. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    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