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


    ABC Announces Disaster Relief Efforts and Resources Following Hurricane Milton

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

    Recent Environmental Cases: Something in the Water, in the Air and in the Woods

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

    Battle of Experts Cannot Be Decided on Summary Judgment

    Contractors Liable For Their Subcontractor’s Failure To Pay Its Employees’ Wages And Benefits

    Chambers USA 2019 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Retainage: What Contractors Need to Know and Helpful Strategies

    The Independent Tort Doctrine (And Its Importance)

    Blindly Relying on Public Adjuster or Loss Consultant’s False Estimate Can Play Out Badly

    U.S. Homeowners Are Lingering Longer, and the Wait Is Paying Off

    Third Circuit Affirms Use of Eminent Domain by Natural Gas Pipeline

    Settlement Reached in Bridge Failure Lawsuit

    U.S. Housing Starts Top Forecast on Single-Family Homes

    Newmeyer & Dillion Gets Top-Tier Practice Area Rankings on U.S. News – Best Lawyers List

    Five Pointers for Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in Texas

    Mortenson Subcontractor Fires Worker Over Meta Data Center Noose

    North Carolina Soil & Groundwater Case to be Heard by U.S. Supreme Court

    OSHA Updates: You May Be Affected

    Court Finds That Limitation on Conditional Use Permit Results in Covered Property Damage Due to Loss of Use

    Corps Issues Draft EIS for Controversial Alaskan Copper Mine

    Insuring Lease/Leaseback Projects

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (07/05/23) – A Hospitality Strike in Southern California, Agencies Step in With Lenders and the Social in ESG

    SunTrust Will Pay $968 Million to Resolve Mortgage Probes

    Guidance for Construction Leaders: How Is the Americans With Disabilities Act Applied During the Pandemic?

    The General Assembly Adds Some Clarity to Contracts and Unlicensed Contractors

    Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud

    Party Cannot Skirt Out of the Very Fraud It Perpetrates

    Manhattan Home Sales Rise at Slower Pace as Prices Jump

    California Supreme Court Holds that Prevailing Wages are Not Required for Mobilization Work, for Now

    Delays in Filing Lead to Dismissal in Moisture Intrusion Lawsuit

    Palm Beach Billionaires’ Fix for Sinking Megamansions: Build Bigger

    Entire Fairness or Business Judgment? It’s Anyone’s Guess

    DOD Contractors Receive Reprieve on Implementation of Chinese Telecommunications Ban

    Drafting or Negotiating A Subcontract–Questions To Consider

    Trump Administration Waives Border Wall Procurement Rules

    Eleventh Circuit Rules That Insurer Must Defend Contractor Despite “Your Work” Exclusion, Where Damage Timing Unclear

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Confirms Carrier Owes No Duty to Defend Against Claims for Faulty Workmanship

    New York Court Holds That the “Lesser of Two” Doctrine Limits Recoverable Damages in Subrogation Actions

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

    1st District Joins 2nd District Court of Appeals and Holds that One-Year SOL Applies to Disgorgement Claims

    New Research Shows Engineering Firms' Impact on Economy, Continued Optimism on Business Climate

    Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage Where Ordinary Negligence is Inseparably Intertwined With Professional Service

    Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity Rule Gets “Trumped” by Indemnity Provision

    Risk Management and Contracting after Hurricane Irma: Suggestions to Avoid a Second Disaster

    Florida Appellate Court Holds Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applicable Irrespective of Contractor Licensure

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Arbitration Motion Practice

    Supreme Court of Kentucky Holds Plaintiff Can Recover for Stigma Damages in Addition to Repair Costs Resulting From Property Damage

    Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm

    An Architect Uses AI to Explore Surreal Black Worlds
    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

    Latosha Ellis Selected for 2019 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Pathfinder Program

    April 10, 2019 —
    Hunton Andrews Kurth has selected Latosha Ellis, an associate in the firm’s Insurance Coverage practice, for the 2019 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) Pathfinder Program. Pathfinder is a national yearlong program that trains diverse, high performing, early-career attorneys in critical career development strategies, including foundational leadership and building professional networks. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
    Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

    Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic

    April 13, 2020 —
    As the circumstances of the COVID pandemic change day by day, and we all rush to keep business moving where and when we can, companies should consider hitting the “pause button” before renewing or executing any new contracts. Developing contracts often takes considerable time and expense, and companies are not in the habit of reworking them often. A change in law may prompt a company to revisit their contract terms, but otherwise business is often carried out with a standard form contract for a period of years. With the COVID pandemic affecting nearly every business and industry, life is not business as usual, and companies should make sure their contracts consider what previously seemed like an unforeseeable event. Force Majeure clauses are included in many contracts to excuse contract performance when made impossible by some unforeseen circumstance. These clauses typically fall under two categories: general and specific. General force majeure clauses excuse performance if performance is prevented by circumstances outside the parties’ control. By contrast, specific force majeure clauses detail the exhaustive list of circumstances (acts of god, extreme weather, war, riot, terrorism, embargoes) which would excuse contract performance. Force majeure clauses are typically interpreted narrowly. If your contract has a specific clause and pandemic or virus is not one of the listed circumstances it may not apply. Whether a particular existing contract covers the ongoing COVID pandemic will vary depending on the language of the contract. Force majeure clauses previously made headlines when the great economic recession hit in 2008. A number of courts held that simple economic hardship was not enough to invoke force majeure. The inability to pay or lack of desire to pay for the contracted goods or services did not qualify as force majeure. In California, impossibility turns on the nature of the contractual performance, and not in the inability of the obligor to do it. (Kennedy v. Reece (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 717, 725.) In other words, the task is objectively impossible not merely impossible or more burdensome to the specific contracting party. California has codified “force majeure” protection where the parties haven’t included any language or the circumstances in the clause don’t apply to the situation at hand. Civil Code section 1511 excuses performance when “prevented or delayed by an irresistible, superhuman cause, or by the act of public enemies of this state or of the United States, unless the parties have expressly agreed to the contrary.” (Civ. Code § 1511.) What qualifies as a “superhuman cause”? In California, the test is whether under the particular circumstances there was such an insuperable interference occurring without the party's intervention as could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care. (Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. C. S. T., Ltd. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 228, 238.) If you find yourself in an existing contract without a force majeure clause, or the statute does not apply, you may consider the doctrine of frustration of purpose. This doctrine is applied narrowly where performance remains possible, but the fundamental reason the parties entered into the contract has been severely or substantially frustrated by an unanticipated supervening circumstance, thus destroying substantially the value of the contract. (Cutter Laboratories, Inc. v. Twining (1963) 221 Cal. App. 2d 302, 314-15.) In other words, performance is still possible but valueless. Note this defense is not likely to apply where the contract has simply become less profitable for one party. Now that COVID is no longer an unforeseeable event, but rather a current and grave reality, a party executing a contract today without adequate protections may have a difficult time proving unforeseeability. Scientists are not sure whether warm weather will suppress the spread of the virus, as it does with the seasonal flu, but to the extent we get a reprieve during the summer we may see a resurgence of cases this Fall or Winter. Companies should take care in reviewing force majeure clauses, and other clauses tied to timely performance such as delay and liquidated damages before renewing or executing new contracts. Your contract scenario may vary from the summary provided above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. During this critical time, BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
    Ms. Ward may be contacted at dward@bph-law.com

    Suzanne Pollack Elected to Lawyers Club of San Diego 2021 Board of Directors

    May 03, 2021 —
    San Diego Associate Suzanne Pollack was recently elected to the 2021 Lawyers Club of San Diego Board of Directors for a three-year term that will begin on July 1, 2021. Founded in 1972, the mission of Lawyers Club - San Diego’s largest specialty bar association - is to advance the status of women in the law and society. “I am honored to be joining Lawyers Club’s Board of Directors, particularly after this last year, during which we saw the dramatic impact that the pandemic had upon women in the workforce," said Ms. Pollack. "Promoting equality, diversity, and advocacy has never been more important, and I look forward to working with the Board to further these goals.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Suzanne Pollack, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Pollack may be contacted at Suzanne.Pollack@lewisbrisbois.com

    Supreme Court of New Jersey Reviews Statutes of Limitation and the Discovery Rule in Construction Defect Cases

    July 18, 2018 —
    Robert Neff Jr. of Wilson Elser analyzed the recent case, Palisades at Fort Lee Condo. Ass’n v. 100 Old Palisade, LLC, 2017 N.J. Lexis 845, 169 A.3d 473 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, September 14, 2017), and states that this ruling “gives defendants the ability to defend against the assertion that the statute of limitations was tolled until the most recent owner (and plaintiff) discovered the cause of action.” Neff concludes that a statute of limitations test needs to be conducted at the beginning of each case: “In Palisades, the motions to dismiss based on the statute of limitations were filed at the conclusion of all discovery. While an initial analysis might yield the conclusion that certain discovery will be needed to ascertain the appropriate accrual date (or dates, in the case of multiple defendants), counsel will then know what discovery to seek during the discovery period.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hawaii Supreme Court Tackles "Other Insurance" Issues

    February 25, 2014 —
    Responding to four certified questions from the Ninth Circuit, the Hawaii Supreme Court addressed various issues raised by competing "other insurance" provisions in two CGL policies. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 Haw. LEXIS 59 (Haw. Feb. 13, 2014). Coverage for a development on Maui was at issue. The developer, VP & PK (ML) LLC, was insured by Lexington. The other insurance provision in Lexington's policy provided it was excess over "any other primary insurance available to you covering liability for damages arising out of the premises . . . for which you have been added as an additional insured." Kila Kila Construction was one of VP & PK's subcontractors. Kika Kila was not an additional insured under Lexington's policy. Kila Kila had its own CGL policy with Nautilus. The Nautilus other insurance clause stated the insurance was excess over "any other primary insurance available to you covering liability arising out of the premises or operations for which you ahve been added as an additional insured." An endorsement added VP & PK as an additional insured, but only for liability arising out of Kila Kila's negligence. 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

    Project Completion Determines Mechanics Lien Recording Deadline

    April 08, 2024 —
    The California mechanics lien is one of the most powerful collection remedies available to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who are unpaid for work performed and materials supplied in relation to a California private works construction project. The mechanics lien allows the claimant to actually sell the property where the work was carried out in order to obtain payment, entirely of course, against the wishes of the property owner. There are a number of important steps to follow and timelines to be met in order to pursue this remedy. First, Understand Your Preliminary Notice Deadline Working within deadlines is absolutely crucial to preserving mechanics lien rights under California law. The deadlines differ, depending on whether you are a “direct” contractor, also known as “original” or “prime” contractor (one who contracts directly with the property owner) or a subcontractor or material supplier. The process begins with the serving of a “preliminary notice” no later than 20 days after the party serving the preliminary notice begins supplying labor or materials to the project. Direct contractors are only required to serve the preliminary notice on the construction lender (Civil Code section 8200-8216), whereas subcontractors and material suppliers must serve not only the construction lender, but also the owner and direct contractor (see Civil Code section 8200(e)). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Lessee Deemed Statutory Employer, Immune from Tort Liability by Pennsylvania Court

    November 03, 2016 —
    The Superior Court of Pennsylvania addressed whether a lessee can be shielded from tort liability as a statutory employer and thus, immune from civil liability under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The court in Doman v. Atlas America, Inc. held that a primary contractor who leased property for the purposes of removing and drilling natural gas is a statutory employer under Section 302(a) of the Act and thus, entitled to tort immunity under Section 203 of the Act. Reprinted courtesy of Jerrold Anders, White and Williams LLP and Alison Russell, White and Williams LLP Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Russell may be contacted at russella@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer's Motion in Limine to Dismiss Case for Lack of Expert Denied

    June 26, 2014 —
    The court denied the insurer's motion in limine seeking to dismiss the insureds' complaint due to the absence of expert testimony. Fabozzi v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74069 (E.D. N.Y. May 30, 2014). During the policy period, the insureds noticed their house had serious structural problems, including cracks in the walls and floors that were pitched toward the rear of the house. The insureds had to move from their house. When they submitted a claim, it was denied by Lexington because the losses were caused by "wear and tear, deterioration, earth movement, settlement, shrinking, bulging or expansion of the property leading to cracking of structural components." The insureds sued. Lexington filed a motion in limine to preclude the testimony of the insureds' expert and to dismiss the complaint for inability to offer prima facie proof of a covered loss absent such expert testimony. 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