BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut construction defect 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


    Free Texas MCLE Seminar at BHA Houston June 13th

    The New “White Collar” Exemption Regulations

    Quick Note: Third-Party Can Bring Common Law Bad Faith Claim

    Construction Law Advisory: Mechanical Contractor Scores Victory in Prevailing Wage Dispute

    The Risks and Rewards of Sustainable Building Design

    Timely Written Notice to Insurer and Cooperating with Insurer

    A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Citizen Suits and the Summer of 2022

    Is the Event You Are Claiming as Unforeseeable Delay Really Unforeseeable?

    California Case Is a Reminder That Not All Insurance Policies Are Alike Regarding COVID-19 Losses

    A Primer on Insurance for Construction Projects

    Energy Efficiency Ratings Aren’t Actually Predicting Energy Efficiency

    Tenants Underwater: Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Privity Requirement for Property Damage Claims Against Contractors

    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    Georgia Law: “An Occurrence Can Arise Where Faulty Workmanship Causes Unforeseen or Unexpected Damage to Other Property”

    Connecticut Supreme Court to Review Several Issues in Asbestos Coverage Case

    OPINION: Stop Requiring Exhibit Lists!

    Illinois Supreme Court Announces Time Standards for Closing Out Cases

    Congratulations to Walnut Creek Partner Bryan Stofferahn and Associate Jeffrey Schilling for Winning a Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Their Client, a Regional Grocery Store!

    California Courts Call a “Time Out” During COVID-19 –New Emergency Court Rules on Civil Litigation

    Contractors May be Entitled to Both Prompt Payment Act Relief and Prejudgment Interest for a Cumulative 24%!

    California Governor Signs SB 496 Amending California’s Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Is New York Heading for a Construction Defect Boom?

    In One of the First Civil Jury Trials to Proceed Live in Los Angeles Superior Court During Covid, Aneta Freeman Successfully Prevailed on Behalf of our Client and Obtained a Directed Verdict and Non-Suit

    Moving Toward a Telework Future: A Checklist of Considerations for Employers

    Construction Defect Litigation in Nevada Called "Out of Control"

    Dealing with Abandoned Property After Foreclosure

    Standard of Care

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Declarant Consent Provision to Amend Arbitration Out of Declarations

    Haight’s Stevie Baris Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Northern California Rising Stars

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

    Insured Entitled to Defense After Posting Medical Records Online

    Palo Alto Considers Fines for Stalled Construction Projects

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052: The “Transit-Oriented Development Claims Act of 2013.”

    Anticipatory Repudiation of a Contract — The Prospective Breach

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2020 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    PA Supreme Court to Rule on Scope of Judges' Credibility Determinations

    Chambers USA 2021 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    A Guide to Evaluating Snow & Ice Cases

    Another Worker Dies in Boston's Latest Construction Accident

    Ruling Finds Builder and Owners at Fault in Construction Defect Case

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to Best Lawyers in America© Orange County and as Attorneys of the Year 2018

    Court Denies Insurers' Motions for Summary Judgment Under All Risk Policies

    KONE is Shaking Up the Industry with BIM

    Expect the Unexpected (Your Design Contracts in a Post-COVID World)

    A Guide to California’s Changes to Civil Discovery Rules

    Newmeyer & Dillion Named as One of the 2018 Best Places to Work in Orange County for Seventh Consecutive Year

    Code Changes Pave Way for CLT in Tall Buildings and Spark Flammability Debate

    Addressing Safety on the Construction Site

    North Dakota Universities Crumble as Oil Cash Pours In
    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

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (04/26/23) – The Energy Transition and a Bit of Brick-and-Mortar Blues

    May 01, 2023 —
    In today’s roundup, Americans can buy homes with bitcoin, new tech aims to engineer a novel building material, federal investments boost the coastline (and construction sales), and more. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Damages in Excess of Policy Limits Do Not Trigger Right to Independent Counsel

    June 22, 2020 —
    Under Illinois law, an insurer’s duty to defend includes the right to control the defense, which allows insurers to protect their financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. However, where a conflict of interest exists, the insured, rather than the insurer, is entitled to assume control of the defense of the underlying action. If this occurs, the insurer satisfies its obligation to defend by reimbursing the insured for the cost of defense provided by independent counsel selected by the insured. What circumstances and situations arise to the level of an actual conflict of interest between the insurer and insured are often grounds for dispute. In Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America, 2020 IL App (1st) 182491 (Apr. 7, 2020), the Illinois Appellate Court addressed whether damages awarded by a jury in excess of the policy limits were sufficient to trigger a right to independent counsel for post-trial and appellate proceedings. According to the Illinois Appellate Court, at least under the facts of the Ryerson case, the answer is “no.” In Ryerson, Nancy Hoffman sued Ryerson for injuries sustained in a tractor-trailer accident. Ryerson tendered the suit to its primary insurer, Travelers, and its umbrella insurer, Illinois National. The policy limits were $2 million and $25 million, respectively. A jury found in favor of Hoffman for over $27.6 million in damages, and Ryerson appealed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

    HVAC System Collapses Over Pool at Gaylord Rockies Resort Colorado

    June 12, 2023 —
    The collapse May 6 of the HVAC system above an indoor pool at the Gaylord Rockies Resort near Denver sent six people to local hospitals, two with life-threatening injuries. An estimated 50 to 100 people were in the water or on the pool deck as pieces of the system fell into the pool and hot tub. Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Seward, Engineering News-Record Ms. Seward may be contacted at sewardj@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Beware of Statutory Limits on Change Orders

    February 18, 2015 —
    While change orders are always part of construction projects, it’s important to know whether a public agency is limited on how much it can increase the scope of the work through change orders. A contractor in Virginia found out the hard way that the state agency did not have the authority to increase the scope of the project and thus the contractor could not collect for the extra work. In Carnell Construction Corp. v. Danville Redevelopment & Housing Authority, the contractor was hired by the housing authority to prepare a site for construction. The project did not go well and both sides blamed the other for delays and increased costs. After being removed from the project, the contractor sued the housing authority for, among other things, breach of contract. The jury awarded the contractor a total of $915,000 for the housing authority’s failure to pay for extra work and improper removal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    November 07, 2012 —
    The Ohio Supreme Court has concluded that claims of defective construction or workmanship are not an occurrence under a general liability policy. The court looked at appellate decisions and concluded that CGL policies are not intended to insure against risks under the control and management of the insured. These risks should instead be mitigated with performance bonds. The question was raised in the case Westfield Ins. Co. v. Custom Agri Systems, Inc. The Sixth District Court of Ohio concluded it was an “open question under Ohio law whether a CGL policy covers defective construction claims.” Westfield filed a motion, granted by the Sixth Circuit, to certify the question to the state Supreme Court. The Sixth Court additionally found that the contractual liability exclusion barred coverage in the case, issues a summary judgment to Westfield. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Termination for Convenience Is Not a Termination for Default

    April 22, 2024 —
    A termination for convenience is NOT a termination for default. They are NOT the same. They should NOT be treated as the same. I am a huge proponent of termination for convenience provisions because sometimes a party needs to be able to exercise a termination for convenience, but the termination is not one that rises to a basis for default. However, exercising a termination for convenience does not mean you get to go back in time and convert the termination for convenience into a termination for default. It does not work like that. Nor should it. An opinion out of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals – Williams Building Company, Inc. v. Department of State, CBCA 7147, 2024 WL 1099788 (CBCA 2024 – demonstrates a fundamental distinction between a termination for convenience and a termination for default, i.e., that you don’t get to conjure up defaults when you exercise a termination for convenience:
    Because a termination for convenience essentially turns a fixed-price construction contract into a cost-reimbursement contract, allowing the contractor to recover its incurred performance costs, the resolution of this appeal will involve identifying the total costs that [Contractor] incurred in performing this contract before [Government] terminated it for convenience. Since [Government] terminated the contract for convenience rather than for default, it no longer matters whether, in the past,[Contractor] acted intentionally in overstating the amount of its incurred costs or committed a contract breach. Ultimately, as permitted in response to a termination for convenience, [Contractor] will recover those allowable costs that [Contractor]establishes it incurred in performing the contract.
    Williams Building Company, supra.
    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

    Hawaii Supreme Court Construes Designated Premises Endorsement In Insured's Favor

    April 01, 2015 —
    The Hawaii Supreme Court held that a Designated Premises Endorsement provided coverage for injury and damage that occurred away from a listed location if the injury or damage arose out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the designated premises. C. Brewer and Co., Ltd. v. Marine Indemn. Ins. Co., 2015 Haw. LEXIS 62 (Haw. March 27, 2015). [Disclosure: our office represents C. Brewer]. The case involves coverage for the former owner (C. Brewer) of land under the Kaloko Reservoir. The Reservoir was fronted by an earthen dam. The Dam burst in March 2006, killing seven people and causing extensive property damage downstream. In 1977, the State of Hawaii and C. Brewer entered an agreement requiring C. Brewer to, among other things, restore and expand the irrigation system that provided water to sugar cane fields in Kilauea, Kauai. C. Brewer formed the Kilauea Irrigation Company (KIC) to satisfy obligations to the State, revitalize the System, and sell System water to local farmers for irrigation. 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

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Trigger and Allocation

    January 24, 2022 —
    In one of the top insurance-coverage decisions of 2021, the Montana Supreme Court at the end of the year handed down a landmark decision adopting the continuous trigger of coverage and “all sums” allocation, finding a duty to defend and ruling that the qualified, or “sudden and accidental” pollution exclusion did not apply. Nat’l Indem. Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021). The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reserved in part the rulings entered by the trial court, largely upholding a $98,000,000 judgment for the State against its CGL insurer for the policy years 1973 to 1975. The ruling thus helps ensure coverage for the hundreds of claims alleging that the State had failed to warn claimants of the dangers of asbestos exposures to workers in vermiculite mining and milling operations in Libby, Montana, operated by W. R. Grace (the “Libby Mine”). Representing amicus curiae United Policyholders (“UP”), Hunton Andrews Kurth supported the position of the policyholder, the State of Montana, on the key rulings on trigger of coverage, allocation, and the pollution exclusion, with the court specifically citing to the Hunton brief in adopting all-sums allocation. This first post in our series covering the Montana Supreme Court’s decisions will address the court’s rulings on trigger of coverage and allocation. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of