BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut consulting engineers
    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 Win for Policyholders: Court Finds Flood Exclusion Inapplicable to Plumbing Leaks Caused by Hurricane Rainfall

    Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable

    California to Require Disclosure of Construction Defect Claims

    Environmental Justice: A Legislative and Regulatory Update

    Kaboom! Illinois Applies the Anti-Subrogation Rule to Require a Landlord’s Subrogating Property Insurer to Defend a Third-Party Complaint Against Tenants

    Supreme Court Set to Alter Law on Key Project, Workforce Issues

    Contrasting Expert Opinions Result in Denial of Cross Motions for Summary Judgment

    Did New York Zero Tolerance Campaign Improve Jobsite Safety?

    The Rubber Hits the Ramp: A Maryland Personal Injury Case

    The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia

    Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners

    Judge Dismisses Suit to Block Construction of Obama Center

    Asbestos Client Alert: Court’s Exclusive Gatekeeper Role May not be Ignored or Shifted to a Jury

    Case-Shiller Redo Shows Less Severe U.S. Home-Price Slump

    Seven Trends That Impact Commercial Construction Litigation in 2021

    Save a Legal Fee: Prevent Costly Lawsuits With Claim Limitation Clauses

    Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: LISA D. LOVE

    Fort Lauderdale Partner Secures Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in High-Stakes Negligence Case

    Traub Lieberman Partners Lisa Rolle, Erin O’Dea, and Nicole Verzillo Win Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

    Trump Sues Casinos to Get Conditions Fixed or Name Off

    FEMA, Congress Eye Pre-Disaster Funding, Projects

    New Nafta Could Settle Canada-U.S. Lumber War, Resolute CEO Says

    Recent Bribery and Anti-Corruption Enforcement Trends in Global Construction Industry

    Citigroup Pays Record $697 Million for Hong Kong Office Tower

    Renters Who Bought Cannot Sue for Construction Defects

    Significant Issues Test Applies to Fraudulent Claims to Determine Attorney’s Fees

    Rainwater Collecting on Rooftop is not Subject to Policy's Flood Sublimits

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: The Colorado Court of Appeals’ Decision Protecting a Declarant’s Right to Arbitration in Construction Defect Cases

    TxDOT: Flatiron/Dragados Faces Default Over Bridge Design Issues

    Southern California Super Lawyers Recognizes Four Snell & Wilmer Attorneys As Rising Stars

    Thinking About a Daubert Motion to Challenge an Expert Opinion?

    AECOM Out as General Contractor on $1.6B MSG Sphere in Las Vegas

    Hunton Andrews Kurth Associate Cary D. Steklof Selected to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite Up & Comers List for 2019

    North Carolina, Tennessee Prepare to Start Repairing Helene-damaged Interstates

    4 Steps to Take When a Worker Is Injured on Your Construction Site

    Manhattan Developer Wants Claims Dismissed in Breach of Contract Suit

    Toronto Skyscraper With $1.2 Billion of Debt Has Been Put in Receivership

    Quick Note: Mitigation of Damages in Contract Cases

    Are Defense Costs In Addition to Policy Limits?

    Hudson River PCB Cleanup Lands Back in Court

    Zillow Seen Dominating U.S. Home Searches with Trulia

    Midview Board of Education Lawsuit Over Construction Defect Repairs

    California Supreme Court Hands Victory to Private Property Owners Over Public Use

    North Dakota Court Determines Inadvertent Faulty Workmanship is an "Occurrence"

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap - Guided Choice Mediation

    California Plant Would Convert Wood Waste Into Hydrogen Fuel

    The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on Construction Businesses

    2016 California Construction Law Upate

    Is Drone Aerial Photography Really Best for Your Construction Projects?

    Labor Intensive
    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

    Construction Worker Falls to His Death at Kyle Field

    January 15, 2014 —
    The family of Angel Garcia, a construction worker who fell to his death while working on Texas A&M’s football stadium (Kyle Field), has filed a $100 million lawsuit against six construction companies claiming inadequate safety policies, procedures, and negligence, Jordan Overturf of The Eagle reported. According to The Eagle, Garcia’s attorneys alleged, “[Garcia] was ‘catapulted off the edge of a fourth-floor ramp’ on the northeast side when a section of concrete fell onto the bucket of the skid steer-loader he was operating. The tractor hit a steel beam during the fall, which exerted enough force to eject Garcia from the tractor.” Garcia did not survive his injuries. The complaint claims the companies involved violated the Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules and regulations. The defendants in the suit were unavailable for comment, according to The Eagle. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Harmon Tower Opponents to Try Mediation

    June 28, 2013 —
    There are plenty of issues on the table in the fight between CityCenter and Tutor Perini over the Harmon Tower project in Las Vegas. Some of them might be solved at a mediator’s table instead of reaching the courtroom. Both sides will be participating in a six-day negotiation with an outside mediator. Their hope is that the projected two-year jury trial can be reduced to only one year. The judge in the case remains skeptical. “It ain’t happening. I know you all,” was Clark County District Judge Elizabeth’s Gonzalez’s comment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage

    January 06, 2012 —

    A portion of a dock on Lack Michigan operated by the Ports of Indiana suffered visible damage. See Ports of Indiana v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130979 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 14, 2011). Lexington Insurance Company insured the port. Lexington agreed that a portion of the dock was damaged and paid $1.2 million for repairs. A dispute arose, however, over whether additional sections of the dock were damaged and whether the damage was the result of more than one "occurrence."

    An expert report opined that a significant drop creating record lows in the water level of Lake Michigan in 2007 caused damage to the dock. Lexington maintained that only 128 feet of the dock was damaged; other portions of the dock did not sustain "direct physical loss or damage."

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Additional Dismissals of COVID Business Interruption, Civil Authority Claims

    December 29, 2020 —
    Among the recent decisions dismissing complaints for business interruption and civil authority coverage due to closures caused by COVID-19 are Pappy's Barber Shops, Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166808 (S.D. Calif. Sept. 11, 2020) and Sandy Point Dental v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171979 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 2020). The difficulty in proving "direct physical loss" was the downfall of both cases. In Pappy's, claims were made for business income losses insured as a result of local and state closure orders. The policy required "direct physical loss of or damage to property at the described premises." Plaintiffs argued that "direct physical loss of" did not require a tangible damage or alteration to property and that the loss of the ability to continue operating their businesses as a result of the government orders met this requirement. The court relied upon a prior decision, 10E, LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165252 (C.D. Calif. Sept. 2, 2020) [post here], where the court noted that under California law, losses from inability to use property did not amount to "direct physical loss" within the meaning of the policy. 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

    Construction Contract’s Scope of Work Should Be Written With Clarity

    March 06, 2023 —
    The scope of work section in your construction contract should never be overlooked. In numerous instances, it is overlooked which leads to a dispute as to the precise nature of the scope of work. This dispute could be the result of an ambiguity in the scope of work section. Or it could be the result of an omission. Or it could be the result of a lack of clarification. Or it could be the result of not properly reviewing and vetting the scope of work section. This is a section—whether included in the body of your contract or attached as an exhibit—you absolutely, positively want clarity. Otherwise, you are potentially setting yourself up for a future dispute that could include (i) an additional work / change order dispute, (ii) an incomplete work dispute, or (iii) a failure to properly perform your work dispute. These are all disputes you want to avoid, and many times can avoid, by going through and negotiating the scope of work section to bring clarity to this section. Remember, clarity is a positive. Ambiguity or uncertainty is a negative. An example of such an avoidable scope of work dispute can be found in All Year Cooling and Heating, Inc. v. Burkett Properties, Inc., 2023 WL 2000991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). Here, an air conditioning contractor was hired to install six new split air conditioning systems. The scope of work provided that there were currently “two split systems that are currently existing, working perfectly and are not to be replaced as part of this contract.” The property manager claimed the air conditioning contractor was required to bring these two existing split air conditioning systems up to code as the contract provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the contractor “will certify and shall ensure that all split systems in the building, upon completion of all the work, will be fully compliant with all codes and regulations and shall be responsible for any costs relates to the implementation and/or remediation of same.” 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

    ASBCA Validates New Type of Claim Related to Unfavorable CPARS Review [i]

    May 03, 2017 —
    For government contractors, an unfavorable performance rating review posted to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”) can be extremely costly. Many of the government-negotiated solicitations include past performance as an important, and sometimes even primary, evaluation factor for contract award. An unfavorable CPARS review on a past contract can cause the contractor to incur substantial extra costs in addressing the unfavorable review with contracting officers on future solicitations, and, in some instances, the contractor saddled with an unfair or inaccurate CPARS may have to challenge the review and recover some of these costs. Both the Federal Court of Claims and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) have held that they have jurisdiction to hear Contract Dispute Act claims regarding unfair and/or inaccurate CPARS review. The relief available to contractors until this year was a declaration from the Court of Claims or Board that an unfair or inaccurate CPARS review was arbitrary and capricious. Neither the Board nor the Court had the authority or power to order the contracting officer to change the unfavorable review. The contractor who received a declaration from the Court or the Board regarding an unfavorable CPARS review may use it in the future to explain the unfavorable review when bidding new government work; however, the unfavorable review remains in the CPARS system and shows up on all future solicitations, the Board or Court decision notwithstanding. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

    S&P 500 Little Changed on Home Sales Amid Quarterly Rally

    July 01, 2014 —
    June 30 (Bloomberg) --The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index was little changed, capping the longest string of quarterly gains since 1998, as a jump in pending home sales offset weaker-than-forecast manufacturing data. D.R. Horton Inc. rallied 3.2 percent, leading gains among homebuilders. Yahoo! Inc. (YHOO) rose 2.6 percent after Piper Jaffray Cos. recommended buying the stock. MannKind Corp. jumped 9.6 percent as the maker of diabetes drugs rebounded from its worst week in two months. Allergan Inc. declined 2.7 percent following regulatory decisions on its drugs. The S&P 500 fell less than 0.1 percent to 1,960.23 at 4 p.m. in New York. The equity benchmark gauge rose 4.7 percent for the quarter, a sixth consecutive advance. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 25.24 points, or 0.2 percent, to 16,826.60 today, trimming its quarterly advance to 2.2 percent. The Nasdaq Composite Index rose 0.2 percent, giving it a 5 percent increase for the three months. Ms. Wang may be contacted at lwang8@bloomberg.net; Mr. Barach may be contacted at jbarach1@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lu Wang and Jacob Barach, Bloomberg

    Fire Tests Inspire More Robust Timber Product Standard

    March 22, 2018 —
    Based on recent fire test results, mass timber groups have adjusted product certification standards to require the use of cross-laminated timber with structural adhesives tested to demonstrate better fire performance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record
    Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com