BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failure
    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


    A WARNing for Companies

    First Suit to Enforce Business-Interruption Coverage Filed

    Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Act Violations

    Drone Use On Construction Projects

    The Top 10 Changes to the AIA A201: What You Need to Know

    Contractors Battle Bitter Winters at $11.8B Site C Hydro Project in Canada

    New York Building Boom Spurs Corruption Probe After Death

    Rooftop Owners Sue Cubs Consultant for Alleged False Statements

    Lumber Liquidators’ Home-Testing Methods Get EPA Scrutiny

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    New Jersey Court Upholds Registration Requirement for Joint Ventures Bidding on Public Works Contracts

    Be Careful With Construction Fraud Allegations

    District of Oregon Predicts Oregon’s Place in “Plain Meaning” Pollution Camp

    What to Do Before OSHA Comes Knocking

    Nashville Stadium Bond Deal Tests Future of Spectator Sports

    ASCE Joins White House Summit on Building Climate-Resilient Communities

    Hoboken Mayor Admits Defeat as Voters Reject $241 Million School

    Litigation Roundup: “You Can’t Make Me Pay!”

    No Duty to Defend Under Renter's Policy

    Albert Reichmann, Builder of NY, London Finance Hubs, Dies at 93

    The Pitfalls of Oral Agreements in the Construction Industry

    Court Holds That Parent Corporation Lacks Standing to Sue Subsidiary’s Insurers for Declaratory Relief

    Toll Brothers Honored at the Shore Builders Association of Central New Jersey Awards

    A Race to the Finish on Oroville Dam Spillway Fix

    Hawaii Federal District Court Rejects Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    Contractor Sued for Contract Fraud by Government

    The Road to Rio 2016: Zika, Super Bacteria, and Construction Delays. Sounds Like Everything is Going as Planned

    Circumstances In Which Design Professional Has Construction Lien Rights

    Illinois Supreme Court Finds Construction Defect Claim Triggers Initial Grant of Coverage

    Let it Shine: California Mandates Rooftop Solar for New Residential Construction

    How to Prepare for Potential Construction Disputes Resulting From COVID-19

    This New Indicator Shows There's No Bubble Forming in U.S. Housing

    Detroit Showed What ‘Build Back Better’ Can Look Like

    Homebuyers Aren't Sweating the Fed

    California Restricts Principles of “General” Personal Jurisdiction

    Forget Palm Springs—Santa Fe Is the New Mecca for Modern Architecture

    MGM Begins Dismantling of the Las Vegas Harmon Tower

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    Question of Parties' Intent Prevents Summary Judgment for Insurer

    COVID-19 Vaccine Considerations for Employers in the Construction Industry

    Defect Claims Called “Witch Hunt”

    The Right to Repair Act Isn’t Out for the Count, Yet. Homebuilders Fight Back

    Neither Designated Work Exclusion nor Pre-Existing Damage Exclusion Defeat Duty to Defend

    Spencer Mayer Receives Miami-Dade Bar Association's '40 Under 40' Award

    Lakewood Introduced City Ordinance to Battle Colorado’s CD Law

    The Buck Stops Over There: Have Indemnitors Become the Insurers of First and Last Resort?

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    The G2G Year in Review: 2019

    Human Eye Resolution Virtual Reality for AEC
    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

    Federal Court Holds that Demolition Exclusion Does Not Apply and Carrier Has Duty to Defend Additional Insureds

    September 02, 2024 —
    In the recent case of Travelers Indem. Co. v. Trisura Specialty Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101953 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2024), the court had occasion to consider the classic additional insured fact pattern of a construction accident. Travelers insured the general contractor and provided a defense to the general contractor as well as its wholly owned subsidiary. Trisura insured the subcontractor, who employed the injured worker. Travelers brought suit, alleging that Trisura is obligated to defend and indemnify the general contractor, its subsidiary, the owner of the building (The City of New York), and the tenant. Trisura denied any obligation to provide coverage due to the application of the “Demolition Exclusion” to the Trisura policy, which provides, in part, that there is no coverage for injury or damage arising out of the demolition of any building or structure which has original ground height in excess of three stories. The accident occurred during the interior demolition of the fifth floor of the building. The court held that the Demolition Exclusion applies only when there is a complete tearing down, razing, or destruction of an entire building. As the accident occurred during interior demolition, the exclusion did not apply. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

    Mortgage Battle Flares as U.K. Homebuying Loses Allure

    January 28, 2015 —
    U.K. banks, which spent six years repairing their balance sheets after the 2008 property crash, want to advance more credit to homebuyers. Borrowers aren’t as enthusiastic. Cheap funding costs and low default rates have made homebuyers attractive to lenders in recent years, boosting returns for companies such as Nationwide Building Society and Lloyds Banking Group Plc. (LLOY) Now, with demand for property cooling, they’re having to fight harder for business. Interest rates on the most popular mortgages fell to record lows in December, according to the Bank of England. Mr. Callanan may be contacted at ncallanan@bloomberg.net; Mr. Partington may be contacted at rpartington@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Neil Callanan and Richard Partington, Bloomberg

    Hurdles with Triggering a Subcontractor Performance Bond

    April 05, 2017 —
    There have been a couple of decisions as of late, particularly in federal court, that have gone in favor of a performance bond surety and against a general contractor’s claim against a subcontractor’s performance bond. These decisions have been so unfavorable that they may be swaying certain internal decisions to move to subcontractor default insurance with, perhaps, subcontractors that pose less risk. From the general contractor’s perspective, if they have to stop the management of the job and progress to jump through hoops to trigger the performance bond’s obligations, rightfully or wrongfully, the bond may not provide them the value they need. Performance bonds are an appropriate product in many instances, but there should be more consistency regarding the actual trigger of a subcontractor’s performance bond obligations. Project teams need to absolutely understand what efforts they need to take, and how they need to take such efforts, in order to properly trigger a performance bond’s obligations. This is a must (and I have presented many seminars on this very issue). Or, the general contractor should move away from the traditional AIA /standard performance bond form, which is the direction I always go when I am involved in the drafting of a performance bond. 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

    Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case Cannot Be Overturned While Facts Are Still in Contention in Related Cases

    September 09, 2011 —

    The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has dismissed an appeal of a summary judgment in the case Bella Investments, Inc. v. Multi Family Services, Inc. MFS was hired by Bella to be the general contractor for a hotel in Gardendale, Alabama. MFS hired various subcontractors, including the architect for the project. After completion of the hotel in April, 2006, Bella made requests for MFS to repair cracked floor tiles.

    In August, 2008, Bella sued MFS, the architect, and various fictitiously named defendants. Subsequently, Bella amended its complaint, naming some of the fictitiously named defendants.

    MFS in turn claimed that Bella’s claims were void under the statute of limitations and that Bella was in beach of contact by failing to pay MFS the full amount owed. MFS moved for summary judgment under the statute of limitations, which was granted by the court.

    Bella requested that the court “alter, amend, or vacate its summary judgment order.” When this was denied, Bella appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which transferred the appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals. The Court of Appeals refused to vacate the summary judgment as claims that form part of the case against MFS are also part of Bella’s claims against the other defendants. For this reason, the court upheld the summary judgment.

    Read the court’s decision…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Part of the Whole: Idaho District Court Holds Economic Loss Rule Bars Tort Claims Related to Water Supply Line that was Part of Home Purchase

    October 03, 2022 —
    In Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill. v. LSP Prods. Grp., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139566, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho (District Court) considered whether the plaintiff’s tort claims against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective toilet water supply line were barred by the economic loss rule. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that, since the supply line was a part of the home when the plaintiff’s insureds purchased it, the plaintiff was barred by the economic loss rule from bringing tort claims against the manufacturer. The District Court granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion, ruling that the supply line was a part of the home, which was the subject of the transaction, at the time it was purchased. Thus, the District Court held that the economic loss rule barred the plaintiff’s tort claims. In 2012, Melissa Norris and Richard Meyers (collectively, the Homeowners) purchased a newly built home in Eagle, Idaho. In 2016, a toilet supply line in one of the bathrooms began leaking, causing water damage to the home as well as to window blinds, an oven and dishwasher. The Homeowners also incurred a loss of rental income. The Homeowners submitted a claim to Safeco Insurance Company (Insurer), their property insurance carrier, who ultimately covered the Homeowners’ losses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    World Cup May Pull Out of Brazil because of Construction Delays

    January 28, 2014 —
    Back in October of last year, CNN reported that a judge suspended construction at one of the stadiums being built for this summer’s World Cup in Brazil. The judge stated that the dangers for construction workers included "being buried, run over, falling from heights and being hit by material, among other serious risks,” according to CNN. Recently, the Los Angeles Times reported that FIFA is threatening to pull out of Brazil because of construction delays: “We cannot organize a match without a stadium,” Jerome Valcke, FIFA’s secretary general, as quoted in the Los Angeles Times. “This has reached a critical point.” The deadline for completion of the 12 World Cup stadiums was January 1st, but various delays—including “fatal construction accidents at stadiums in Sao Paulo, Brasilia, and Manaus” as well as worker walk offs over pay—forced FIFA to “relax” the deadline. Read the full story at CNN... Read the full story at the Los Angeles Times... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Stay-At-Home Orders and Work Restrictions with 50 State Matrix

    April 27, 2020 —
    As each day of the coronavirus pandemic passes, more and more states, cities and counties across the country are implementing stay-at-home (or shelter-in-place) orders and restrictions on individuals and businesses. These restrictions are impacting numerous persons and businesses, including those working in the construction industry. Smith Currie is keeping abreast of these restrictions and has developed the matrix below identifying statewide and local restrictions in place. This matrix is by no means complete, and we will continue updating it as we become aware of additional orders. In the write ups included with the PDF below, you will find links to the applicable orders with more detailed information. Consult legal counsel for advice on the impact of a particular restriction or restrictions to your business. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Smith Currie
    The firm Smith Currie may be contacted at info@smithcurrie.com

    Municipalities Owe a Duty to Pedestrians Regardless of Whether a Sidewalk Presents an “Open and Obvious” Hazardous Condition. (WA)

    February 25, 2014 —
    Issue: Does a municipality owe a duty to pedestrians to keep sidewalks reasonably safe for their intended use even if the condition of the sidewalk is an open and obvious hazard? YES Facts: Plaintiff Nanci Millson liked to walk in Lynden, Washington. While plaintiff regularly walked through her neighborhood and knew that various areas of the sidewalk were cracked and lifted, she continued to walk through her neighborhood nonetheless. Plaintiff felt that the sidewalks closer to her neighborhood were in better condition and when she reached an area a block away from her home, she picked up speed even though she was in an area of sidewalk she previously had not walked before. Plaintiff became distracted, tripped on an elevated sidewalk and fell, suffering various injuries. Plaintiff sued the City of Lynden (“City”) for negligently failing to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. The City argued that the tripping hazard was “open and obvious”, and the trial court granted the City summary judgment. The issue before the Court of Appeals was whether an “open and obvious” condition is a matter of law to be decided by the court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Natasha Khachatourians, Scheer & Zehnder LLP
    Ms. Khachatourians may be contacted at natashak@scheerlaw.com