BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing 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


    Construction of New U.S. Homes Declines on Plunge in South

    Edinburg School Inspections Uncovered Structural Construction Defects

    How Construction Contracts are Made. Hint: It’s a Bit Like Making Sausage

    World Cup May Pull Out of Brazil because of Construction Delays

    Congratulations to San Diego Partner Johnpaul Salem and Senior Associate Scott Hoy for Obtaining a Complete Defense Verdict!

    Just Because You Record a Mechanic’s Lien Doesn’t Mean You Get Notice of Foreclosure

    President Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Requires a Viable Statutory Framework (PPP Statutes)[i]

    Indemnification Against Release/“Disposal” of Hazardous Materials

    Denver’s Proposed Solution to the Affordable Housing Crisis

    Lis Pendens – Recordation and Dissolution

    Hunton Insurance Coverage Group Ranked in National Tier 1 by US News & World Report

    Timber Prices Likely to Keep Rising

    Ortega Outbids Pros to Build $10 Billion Property Empire

    Apple to Open Steve Jobs-Inspired Ring-Shaped Campus in April

    The Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (ASCDC) and the Construction Defect Claims Managers Association (CDMA) Annual Construction Defect Seminar

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Plaza Construction Negotiating Pay Settlement for Florida Ritz-Carlton Renovation

    Re-Entering the Workplace: California's Guideline for Employers

    Insureds' Experts Insufficient to Survive Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    Construction Suit Ends with Just an Apology

    A Matter Judged: Subrogating Insurers Should Beware of Prior Suits Involving the Insured

    Anticipatory Repudiation of a Contract — The Prospective Breach

    Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Coverage Action Arising out of a Claim for Personal Injury

    Celebrating Excellence: Lisa Bondy Dunn named by Law Week Colorado as the 2024 Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants

    Tax Increase Pumps $52 Billion Into California Construction

    New York Building Boom Spurs Corruption Probe After Death

    Montana Federal District Court Finds for Insurer in Pollution Coverage Dispute

    Construction Lien Waiver Provisions Contractors Should Be Using

    Fifth Circuit Requires Causal Distinction for Ensuing Loss Exception to Faulty Work Exclusion

    General Contractor/Developer May Not Rely on the Homeowner Protection Act to Avoid a Waiver of Consequential Damages in an AIA Contract

    U.S. State Adoption of the National Electrical Code

    Athletic Trainers Help Workers Get Back to the Jobsite and Stay Healthy After Injury

    Contractor Gets Green Light to Fix Two Fractured Girders at Salesforce Transit Center

    Unlocking the Potential of AI and Chat GBT in Construction Management

    WSHB Expands to Philadelphia

    Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.

    Manhattan to Get Tall, Skinny Tower

    Do Not Pass Go! Duty to Defend in a Professional Services Agreement (law note)

    No Escape: California Court of Appeals Gives a Primary CGL Insurer’s “Other Insurance” Clause Two Thumbs Down

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Sean Shecter to Join American University Environmental and Energy Law Alumni Advisory Council

    Eleventh Circuit Finds No “Property Damage” Where Defective Component Failed to Cause Damage to Other Non-Defective Components

    Warranty Reform Legislation for Condominiums – Unfair Practices used by Developers and Builders to avoid Warranty Responsibility for Construction Defects in Newly Constructed Condominiums

    Massachusetts High Court: Attorney's Fee Award Under Consumer Protection Act Not Covered by General Liability Insurance Policy

    Reasonableness of Liquidated Damages Determined at Time of Contract (or, You Can’t Look Back Again)

    Insureds Survive Motion to Dismiss Civil Authority Claim

    Wilke Fleury Celebrates the Addition of Two New Partners

    In Louisiana, Native Americans Struggle to Recover From Ida

    Billionaire Behind Victoria’s Secret Built His Version of the American Heartland

    Former Zurich Executive to Head Willis North America Construction Insurance Group
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    The Privette Doctrine and Its Exceptions: Court of Appeal Grapples With the Easy and Not So Easy

    November 18, 2024 —
    In CBRE v. Superior Court, 102 Cal.App.5th 639 (2024), the 4th District Court of Appeal grappled with a thorny and not-so-thorny issue involving injured parties under the Privette doctrine. The less thorny issue was whether application of the Privette doctrine depends on whether a written contract exists between the parties. Spoiler: It does not. The thorny issue was whether the Hooker exception to the Privette doctrine – which applies when a landowner exercises control over a project – should apply where a landowner directs a contractor to perform work that is at odds with legal requirements. The CBRE Case Property Reserve, Inc. owns an office building managed by CBRE in San Diego, California. On April 9, 2019, PRI entered into a lease agreement with a new tenant for a suite in the building. The lease required that PRI perform certain tenant improvements. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    New Jersey’s Proposed Construction Defect Law May Not Cover Everything

    December 11, 2013 —
    New Jersey is considering a new law that would make explicit that construction defects are accidents under a commercial general liability policy. But the site GreenBuildingConstructionLaw points out that it wouldn’t necessarily be the last word on things. The bill “does not obligate insurers to provide coverage for construction defects.” Exclusions could still come from “the various ‘business risk’ exclusions commonly found in commercial general liability policies, such as the ‘your work’ or ‘insured product’ exclusions.” The writer concludes that “contractors seeking coverage under the policies (and their insurers seeking to disclaim coverage), however, will still need to litigate the issue of whether the alleged property damage is covered by the insuring clause, and if it is, whether the various exclusions apply.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    First-Time Homebuyers Make Biggest Share of Deals in 17 Years

    February 22, 2018 —
    Millennials are playing homeownership catch-up. First-time buyers rushed into the market last year, making 38 percent of all U.S. single-family home purchases, the biggest share since 2000, data released Thursday by Genworth Mortgage Insurance show. The 2.07 million new or existing homes bought by first-timers was 7 percent more than in 2016, according to the insurer, part of Genworth Financial Inc. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg

    The Difference Between Routine Document Destruction and Spoliation

    October 18, 2021 —
    In today’s world, there is a tendency to believe that everything must be preserved forever. The common belief is that documents, emails, text messages, etc. cannot be deleted because doing so may be viewed as spoliation (i.e., intentionally destroying relevant evidence). A party guilty of spoliation can be sanctioned, which can include an adverse inference that the lost information would have helped the other side. But that does not mean that contractors have to preserve every conceivable piece of information or data under all circumstances. There are key differences between routine document destruction (when done before receiving notice of potential claims or litigation) and spoliation. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decision in Appeal of Sungjee Constr. Co., Ltd., ASBCA Nos. 62002 and 62170 (Mar. 23, 2021) provides a good reminder. There, Sungjee challenged its default termination under a construction contract at Osan Air Base in South Korea. Sungjee argued that the government denied it access to the site for 352 days (out of a 450-day performance period) by refusing to issue passes that were needed to access the base. The government argued that it had issued the passes, but it could not produce them to Sungjee in discovery because they had been destroyed as part of a routine document destruction policy. The base security force issued hard copy passes and entered the information in a biometric system. The government was able to produce the biometric system data but not the hard copy passes because they were destroyed each year. Sungjee argued the government was guilty of spoliation and moved for sanctions. It asked the Board to draw an adverse inference that the passes would have shown that the government had not issued proper passes on a timely basis, which delayed Sungjee’s performance. The Board denied Sungjee’s motion for several reasons. Reprinted courtesy of Steven A. Neeley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Neeley may be contacted at steve.neeley@huschblackwell.com

    Lewis Brisbois Appellate Team Scores Major Victory in Bad Faith Insurance Action

    May 24, 2021 —
    Appellate Partner Raul L. Martinez and Los Angeles Partners Elise D. Klein and Celia Moutes-Lee recently secured a major win in an appeal of a bad faith insurance action. In Wexler v. California Fair Plan Association (Apr. 14, 2021, B303100) __Cal.App.5th__, Division Eight of the Second Appellate District (Los Angeles), the court held that the plaintiff, the daughter of insurance policy holders, had no standing to pursue bad faith allegations against her parents’ insurer for smoke damage to her personal possessions. The daughter’s parents owned a home in the mountains where there was a heightened risk of fires. The parents insured their home with a California FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan) owner-occupied dwelling policy (the FAIR Plan Policy). The FAIR Plan Policy only insured the dwelling and its contents against damage from fire, lightning, and internal explosion with limited coverage for smoke damage. The FAIR Plan Policy also expressly disclaimed coverage for individuals not specifically named in the policy. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s name did not appear in any of her parents’ insurance documents. Reprinted courtesy of Raul Martinez, Lewis Brisbois and Elise Klein, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Martinez may be contacted at Raul.Martinez@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Klein may be contacted at Elise.Klein@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    CRH to Buy Building-Products Firm Laurence for $1.3 Billion

    September 03, 2015 —
    CRH Plc agreed to buy Los Angeles-based C.R. Laurence Co. for $1.3 billion to expand in products used in window installation as U.S. construction markets stabilize. C.R. Laurence, which is owned by the Friese family, makes hardware and products used in the installation of architectural glass and generated pretax profit of $51 million in 2014, Dublin-based CRH said in a statement Thursday. CRH shares rose 4.9 percent to 25.79 euros as of 8:56 a.m. in Dublin, giving the company a market value of 21.2 billion euros ($24 billion). The purchase is timed with a recovery in U.S. construction markets, driven by demand for industrial buildings. CRH reported a "promising backlog" of business at its Americas Materials division in May. Combining the companies will generate $40 million a year in savings from 2017, it said. Reprinted courtesy of Phil Serafino, Bloomberg and Andrew Marc Noel, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    AB5 Construction Exemption - A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5's Three-Part Test

    May 18, 2020 —
    Construction companies have a unique opportunity to avoid the application of the restrictive new independent contractors' law that took effect this year. This article provides a checklist that will help construction companies determine whether their relationships with subcontractors qualify for this exemption. California’s Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), which went into effect Jan. 1, 2020, enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. Certain professions and industries are potentially exempt from this standard, including the construction industry. The ABC test does not apply to the relationship between a contractor and an individual performing work pursuant to a subcontractor in the construction industry if certain criteria are met. In order for the “construction exemption” to apply, the contractor must demonstrate that all of the following criteria are satisfied. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears
    Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    April 20, 2017 —
    Earlier, we reported on a California Court of Appeals decision – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc. – which held for the first time that a second-place bidder on a public works contract could sue a winning bidder who failed to pay its workers prevailing wages, under the business tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Fast forward nearly two years, several amicus briefs, and “one doghouse”* later and the California Supreme Court has . . . reversed. The Roy Allan Slurry Seal Case To catch you up, or rather, refresh your recollection . . . Between 2009 and 2012, American Asphalt South, Inc. was awarded 23 public works contracts totaling more than $14.6 million throughout Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. Two of the losing bidders on those projects – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. and Doug Martin Contracting, Inc. – sued American in each of these counties for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage as well as under the Unfair Practices Act (“UPA”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17000 et seq.) and the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com