BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut soil failure 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


    Newmeyer & Dillion Welcomes Three Associates to Newport Beach Office

    Contractual Indemnification Limitation on Florida Public Projects

    Diggin’ Ain’t Easy: Remember to Give Notice Before You Excavate in California

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

    Bill Taylor Co-Authors Chapter in Pennsylvania Construction Law Book

    Arezoo Jamshidi Selected to the 2023 San Diego Super Lawyers List

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    Direct Contractors In California Should Take Steps Now To Reduce Exposure For Unpaid Wages By Subcontractors

    California to Require Disclosure of Construction Defect Claims

    Who is a “Contractor” as Used in “Unlicensed Contractor”?

    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is Proud to Announce Jeannette Garcia Has Been Elected as Secretary of the Hispanic Bar Association of Orange County!

    Amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 – Expert Testimony

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

    In Real Life the Bad Guy Sometimes Gets Away: Adding Judgment Debtors to a Judgment

    Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson

    Bankrupt Canada Contractor Execs Ordered to Repay $26 Million

    New Jersey Rules that Forensic Lab Analysts Can’t be Forced to Testify

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    Nuclear Fusion Pushes to Reach Commercial Power Plant Stage

    Colorado Court of Appeals holds that insurance companies owe duty of prompt and effective communication to claimants and repair subcontractors

    Golden Gate Bridge's $76 Million Suicide Nets Near Approval

    You Have Choices (Litigation Versus Mediation)

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (11/16/22) – Backlog Shifts, Green Battery Storage, and Russia-Ukraine Updates

    Wendel Rosen Construction Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers

    Lennar Profit Tops Estimates as Home Prices Increase

    ADA Compliance Checklist For Your Business

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dispose of Hail Damage Claim Fails

    Eleventh Circuit Holds that EPA Superfund Remedial Actions are Usually Entitled to the FTCA “Discretionary Function” Exemption

    Condo Building Hits Highest Share of Canada Market Since 1971

    Maine Court Allows $1B Hydropower Transmission Project to Proceed

    Mexico's Richest Man Carlos Slim to Rebuild Collapsed Subway Line

    Competent, Substantial Evidence Carries Day in Bench Trial

    School Board Settles Construction Defect Suit

    The Ghosts of Tariffs Past May Help Us in the Future

    California Court of Appeal Makes Short Work Trial Court Order Preventing Party From Supplementing Experts

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    Chinese Billionaire Developer Convicted in UN Bribery Case

    Industry News: New Partner at Burdman Law Group

    Two Architecturally Prized Buildings May be Demolished

    Turmoil Slows Rebuilding of Puerto Rico's Power Grid

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

    Town Sues over Defective Work on Sewer Lines

    The Importance of Retrofitting Existing Construction to Meet Sustainability Standards

    Are We Headed for a Work Shortage?

    Illinois Court Assesses Factual Nature of Term “Reside” in Determining Duty to Defend

    “To Indemnify, or Not to Indemnify, that is the Question: California Court of Appeal Addresses Active Negligence in Indemnity Provisions”

    Big Policyholder Win in Michigan

    Colorado Springs may be Next Colorado City to Add Construction Defects Ordinance

    Haight’s Sacramento Office Has Moved

    White and Williams Celebrates Chambers 2024 Rankings
    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

    Canada Home Resales Post First Fall in Eight Months

    October 15, 2014 —
    Canadian existing home sales fell from a four-year high in September (TNBHICY%), the first decline in eight months, led by Calgary and Edmonton in oil-rich Alberta. Sales fell 1.4 percent to 41,666 units, the Canadian Real Estate Association said today from Ottawa. From a year earlier sales rose 10.6 percent and the average price climbed 5.9 percent to C$408,795 ($362,100). The decline came in part because of a shortage of “affordably priced single family homes,” Beth Crosbie, CREA President, said in the report. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greg Quinn, Bloomberg
    Mr. Quinn may be contacted at gquinn1@bloomberg.net

    Chinese Telecommunications Ban to Expand to Federally Funded Contracts Effective November 12, 2020

    September 21, 2020 —
    In our previous alert, we discussed the Federal Government’s Ban (the “Ban”) on certain Chinese covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment and services in federal government contracts. The ban prohibits government contractors and subcontractors from supplying to the Federal Government or using in their own internal operations certain telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced by Huawei Technologies Company, ZTE Corporation, Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, and Dahua Technology Company, as well as their subsidiaries and affiliates. The Ban currently applies to companies contracting directly with the Federal Government. Soon, however, the Ban – at least in part – will expand to contractors and subcontractors who are awarded certain federally assisted contracts and subcontracts. On August 13, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) published Final Guidance revising its grants and agreements regulations (2 CFR Part 200) to prohibit recipients and subrecipients from using loan or grant funds to purchase or obtain covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment or services. Effective November 12, 2020, recipients and subrecipients are prohibited from obligating or expending loan or grant funds to:
    1. Procure or obtain;
    2. Extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain; or
    3. Enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.
    Reprinted courtesy of Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson and Sabah Petrov, Peckar & Abramson Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com Ms. Petrov may be contacted at spetrov@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Georgia Supreme Court Determines Damage to "Other Property" Not Necessary for Finding Occurrence

    July 31, 2013 —
    The Georgia Supreme Court has determined that an "occurrence" may arise under a CGL policy even if "other property" is not damaged. Taylor Morrison Servs. v. HDI-Gerling Am. Ins. Co., 2013 Ga. LEXIS 618 (Ga. July 12, 2013). Taylor Morrison, the insured, was a homebuilder. It was sued in a class action by more than 400 homeowners in California alleging that the concrete foundations of their homes were improperly constructed. This led to water intrusion, cracks in the floors and driveways, and warped and buckled flooring. At first, HDI-Gerling defended under a reservation of rights. Subsequently, however, HDI-Gerling sued Taylor Morrison in federal district court in Georgia, seeking a declaratory judgment that there was no coverage. The district court granted summary judgment to HDI-Gerling after determining that there was no "occurrence" when the only "property damage" alleged was damage to work of the insured. Georgia law was applied to the dispute. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    The Almost-Collapse of a Sarasota, Florida Condo Building

    July 11, 2021 —
    Five years ago, residents of the Dolphin Tower in Sarasota, Florida were forced to evacuate after cracks appeared in their fourth-floor condominium units. “My assistant calls me and says, ‘[Kris] thinks the building is falling down,’” David Karins of Karins Engineering told Sarasota Magazine. “I said, ‘I doubt that.’ Then I got there and saw what was going on and I said, ‘You know, the building may be falling down.’” In July of 2010, city officials ordered all residents to evacuate. Five years and $11 million dollars in rehabilitation and residents were finally able to move back in last month. The Herald-Tribune had previously interviewed John Bonacci, an engineer at Sarasota’s Karins Engineering: “I’d say yes, there was grave danger. It was luck that it didn’t come all the way down. Getting shoring in there quickly was instrumental in preventing it from collapsing.” Read the full story, Sarasota Magazine... Read the full story, Herald-Tribune... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Top Developments March 2024

    April 22, 2024 —
    CLAIMS-MADE COVERAGE Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Syngenta Crop Prot. LLC, 2024 Del. LEXIS 68 (Del. Feb. 26, 2024) Delaware Supreme Court concludes that a letter from a lawyer informing an insured of possible lawsuits without identifying potential plaintiffs or demanding payment is not a “claim for damages” within the meaning of claims-made CGL and umbrella liability policies. Citing case law from Delaware and other jurisdictions, it reasoned that, in the ordinary sense, a “claim for damages” (which the policies did not define) is “a demand or request for monetary relief by or on behalf of an identifiable claimant.” According to the court, the letter in question did not meet this definition because it did not identify any claimants “except in the vaguest terms” or request monetary relief on any claimant’s behalf, but rather communicated only a threat of future litigation. As a result, the letter was not a claim made before the policy periods at issue. POLLUTION EXCLUSION Wesco Ins. Co. v. Brad Ingram Constr., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1488 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2024) A divided Ninth Circuit panel, applying California law, holds that a pollution exclusion* in a CGL policy does not preclude a duty to defend an underlying suit alleging physical injury from exposure to “clouds of toxic dust” deposited in the environment by a wildfire and released during clean up efforts. Citing MacKinnon v. Truck Ins. Exch., 73 P.3d 1205 (Cal. 2003), the majority explained that determining whether a “pollution event” (i.e., “environmental pollution”) resulting in excluded injury has occurred involves consideration of “the character of the injurious substance” and whether the exposure resulted from a “mechanism specified in the policy.” It concluded that a potential for coverage (and, therefore, a defense obligation) existed because, although wildfire debris may be considered a “pollutant” in certain circumstances, the mechanism alleged in the underlying complaint – “expos[ure] . . . to clouds of toxic dust during the loading and unloading of [the underlying plaintiff’s] truck” – did not clearly constitute an “event commonly thought of as pollution.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    No Coverage For Wind And Flood Damage Suffered From Superstorm Sandy

    July 27, 2020 —
    The court found that the policy's anti-sequential clause barred coverage for damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. Estate of Doerfler v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2020 N.J. Sup. Unpub. LEXIS 920 (May 14, 2020). The insureds held identical homeowners policies from Chubb and Federal Insurance Company. Damage resulting from flood was not covered. The policies' "surface water exclusion" stated,
    [W]e do not cover any loss caused by: flood, surface water, waves, tidal water, overflow of water from a body of water . . . or spray from any of these even if driven by wind.
    The insureds also had separate flood insurance policies, insuring the structure of each home for $250,000. Superstorm Sandy created wind gusts as high as eighty miles per hour. A severe storm surge caused tides to rise between nine and eleven feet. The storm surge caused surface water to flood onto plaintiffs' properties and their homes ultimately collapsed. 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

    Tension Over Municipal Gas Bans Creates Uncertainty for Real Estate Developers

    February 07, 2022 —
    On November 15, 2021, the New York City Council approved a bill banning gas hookups in new buildings, making the biggest city in the U.S. the latest in a string of municipalities to prohibit natural gas infrastructure in new homes and buildings. In the two-and-a-half years since Berkeley, California, passed its then-novel municipal ban on new natural gas infrastructure, numerous cities have found themselves at odds with state governments and industry groups on the issue of full electrification in residential and commercial real estate. The resulting disputes, litigation and regulatory uncertainty have created headaches for the real estate industry. Although not all view the restrictions as negative, and many developers have embraced the push for more climate-neutral buildings, these bans introduce complexity to the real estate market, raising additional legal and commercial challenges. Background According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the use of natural gas in homes and businesses accounts for 13 percent of annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. For that reason, advocacy groups have pushed cities to prohibit natural gas infrastructure in new construction and encourage full electrification of newly constructed buildings. In addition to New York and Berkeley, cities that have either passed or considered such ordinances include San Francisco, Sacramento, Seattle and Denver, as well as numerous smaller cities. New York City’s newly passed gas ban, in particular, prohibits natural gas hookups in new buildings under seven stories by 2024, and in taller buildings by 2027, but exempts hookups in commercial kitchens. Reprinted courtesy of Sidney L. Fowler, Pillsbury, Robert G. Howard, Pillsbury and Emily Huang, Pillsbury Mr. Fowler may be contacted at sidney.fowler@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Huang may be contacted at emily.huang@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Mortgage Bonds Stare Down End of Fed Easing as Gains Persist

    October 29, 2014 —
    The end of the Federal Reserve’s third round of bond purchases is proving to be a non-event for mortgage-backed debt. That’s partly because even though the U.S. central bank won’t be adding more home-loan securities to its balance sheet, policy makers will still be buying enough to prevent its holdings from shrinking. Those purchases are having a greater impact as the pace of net issuance slows to a quarter of the amount last year amid a weaker property market. The $5.4 trillion market for government-backed mortgage bonds is defying predictions for a slump tied to the wind-down of the Fed stimulus program, whose completion economists predict will be announced today. Yields on benchmark Fannie Mae (FNMA) notes have shrunk 0.14 percentage point this year relative to government debt, narrowing to within 1.09 percentage points of an average of five- and 10-year Treasury rates. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jody Shenn, Bloomberg
    Ms. Shenn may be contacted at jshenn@bloomberg.net