BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation 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


    Conn. Appellate Court Overturns Jury Verdict, Holding Plaintiff’s Sole Remedy for Injuries Arising From Open Manhole Was State’s Highway Defect Statute

    Engineer and CNA Dispute Claim Over Dual 2014 Bridge Failures

    Connecticut Supreme Court Further Refines Meaning of "Collapse"

    San Francisco Office Secures Defense Verdict in Legal Malpractice Action

    Colorado Homebuyers Must be in Privity of Contract with Developer to Assert Breach of Implied Warranty of Suitability

    As Recovery Continues, Home Improvement Stores Make Sales

    CSLB Begins Processing Applications for New B-2 License

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle Wins Summary Judgment on Behalf of Contract Utility Company in Personal Injury Action

    Newmeyer & Dillion’s Alan Packer Selected to 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers List

    SCOTUS to Weigh Landowners' Damage Claim Against Texas DOT

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Construction Termination Part 2: How to Handle Construction Administration When the Contractor Is Getting Fired

    Haight Celebrates 2024 New Partner Promotions!

    Workers Hurt in Casino Floor Collapse

    FEMA Offers to Review Hurricane Sandy Claims

    Monumental Museum Makeover Comes In For Landing

    California Contractor Spills Coffee on Himself by Failing to Stay Mechanics Lien Action While Pursuing Arbitration

    Construction Termination Issues Part 6: This is the End (Tips for The Design Professional)

    Walking the Tightrope of SB 35

    Bad Welds Doom Art Installation at Central Park

    Unlicensed Contractors Caught in a Sting Operation

    Insurance Policy Language Really Does Matter

    Coverage Denied for Faulty Blasting and Improper Fill

    Balcony Collapses Killing Six People

    Benefits to Insureds Under Property Insurance Policy – Concurrent Cause Doctrine

    Timely Written Notice to Insurer and Cooperating with Insurer

    Details Matter: The Importance of Strictly Following Public Bid Statutes

    Agreement Authorizing Party’s Own Engineer to Determine Substantial Compliance Found Binding on Adverse Party

    2022 California Construction Law Update

    Unions Win Prevailing Wage Challenge Brought By Charter Cities: Next Stop The Supreme Court?

    Updated Covid-19 Standards In The Workplace

    Waiving Consequential Damages—What Could Go Wrong?

    New Case Law Update: Mountain Valleys, Chevron Deference and a Long-Awaited Resolution on the Sacketts’ Small Lot

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “You Left Out a Key Ingredient!”

    Smart Cities Offer New Ideas for Connectivity

    Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co.

    New Member Added to Seattle Law Firm Williams Kastner

    Powering Goal Congruence in Construction Through Smart Contracts

    Insured Entitled to Defense After Posting Medical Records Online

    Understanding the Real Estate and Tax Implications of Florida's Buyer Ban Law

    NY Construction Safety Firm Falsely Certified Workers, Says Manhattan DA

    No Indemnity Coverage Where Insured Suffers No Loss

    16 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2021 Top Lawyers!

    Will Claims By Contractors on Big Design-Build Projects Ever End?

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

    Fannie Overseer Moves to Rescue Housing With Lower Risk to Lenders

    Can a Lease Force a Tenant's Insurer to Defend the Landlord?

    Were Condos a Bad Idea?

    Duty to Defend Bodily Injury Evolving Over Many Policy Periods Prorated in Louisiana

    The Benefits of Trash Talking: A Cautionary Tale of Demolition Gone Wrong
    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

    California Court of Appeal Adopts Horizontal Exhaustion Rule

    June 28, 2013 —
    In a long running suit regarding thousands of asbestos bodily injury claims brought against Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation, the California appellate court held that the excess carrier's indemnity obligation did not attach until all collectible primary policies were exhausted. Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corp. v. Ins. Co. of the State of Pennsylvania, 215 Cal. App.4th 210 (Cal. Ct. App. April 8, 2013). Kaiser manufactured a variety of asbestos-containing products from 1944 through the 1970's. Truck Insurance Company provided primary insurance to Kaiser from 1964 to 1983, through four CGL policies covering 19 annual policy periods. The policy in effect from 1974 to 1981 contained a $500,000 "per occurrence" liability limit. Kaiser was insured by three other primary carriers between 1947 and 1987. ICSOP issued a first layer excess policy to Kaiser from 1974 through 1976. Kaiser tendered numerous claims for bodily injury to Truck. By October 2004, Truck's indemnity payments exceeded $50 million and included at least 39 claims that resulted in payments in excess of $500,000. For claims alleging bodily injury in 1974, Kaiser selected Truck's 1974 policy to respond to each of the claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Practical Advice: Indemnification and Additional Insured Issues Revisited

    September 08, 2016 —
    Lawyers love writing about indemnification. There are seventeen blog articles on our website alone that deal with the subject. Before you click out of this email in disgust that we are rehashing a stale topic, this post contains some practical advice for contractors and subcontractors dealing with the perplexing issues of indemnification and additional insured provisions. The concept of indemnity is based on a contractual agreement made between two parties, in which one party agrees to pay for the potential losses or damages caused by the other party. To indemnify someone means to protect that person or entity by promising to pay the cost of possible future damage, loss, or injury. When signing a contract, you should identify the indemnity obligations that could cost your business money. Finding the words “hold harmless” or “indemnify” in a proposed contract is not enough. The terms “hold harmless,” “save harmless,” or “indemnify” are a big part of the indemnification obligation. Although insurance requirements (“additional insured” clauses) accomplish virtually the same thing as very broad, unfair, or unlimited indemnity terms do, they result in an “end run” around the effort to limit the indemnification obligation. 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

    NCDOT Aims to Reopen Helene-damaged Interstate 40 by New Year's Day

    December 10, 2024 —
    Interstate 40, closed in late September when flooding from Hurricane Helene caused multiple landslides and washouts in the Pigeon River Gorge between North Carolina and Tennessee, is expected to partially reopen on New Year’s Day 2025, more than three months after the storm. Long-term reconstruction plans are still in early development. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lacey, ENR
    Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com

    Sixth Circuit Lifts Stay on OSHA’s COVID-19 Temporary Emergency Standards. Supreme Court to Review

    January 10, 2022 —
    As we round out the year, here’s a bit of news, with more likely to come, regarding the U.S. Department of Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) COVID-19 Temporary Emergency Standards (ETS). As we wrote earlier, on November 4, 2021, OSHA issued its ETS which applies to private employers with 100 or more employees (Covered Employers). Among other things, the ETS requires Covered Employers to have a COVID-19 vaccination policy requiring all employees to be fully vaccinated with certain exceptions, to provide for weekly testing of non-fully vaccinated employees, and to require face coverings. Under the ETS, Covered Employers were required to comply with the ETS other than the testing requirements by December 6, 2021 and to comply with the testing requirements beginning January 4, 2022. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

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

    November 01, 2022 —
    Recently, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed two House Bills that amend the Illinois Wage Payment & Collections Act, 820 ILCS 115 et. seq. (“Wage Act”), to provide greater protection for individuals working in the construction trades against wage theft in a defined class of projects. Pursuant to this new law, every general contractor, construction manager, or “primary contractor,” working on the projects included in the Bill’s purview will be liable for wages that have not been paid by a subcontractor or lower-tier subcontractor on any contract entered into after July 1, 2022, together with unpaid fringe benefits plus attorneys’ fees and costs that are incurred by the employee in bringing an action under the Wage Act. This new wage theft law follows several other states that have considered and passed similar legislation. These amendments to the Wage Act apply to a primary contractor engaged in “erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building structure, or other private work.” However, there are important limitations to the amendment’s applicability. The amendment does not apply to projects under contract with state or local government, or to general contractors that are parties to a collective bargaining agreement on a project where the work is being performed. Additionally, the amendment does not apply to primary contractors who are doing work with a value of less than $20,000, or work that involves only the altering or repairing of an existing single-family dwelling or single residential unit in a multi-unit building. Reprinted courtesy of Edward O. Pacer, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs) and David J. Scriven-Young, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs) Mr. Pacer may be contacted at epacer@pecklaw.com Mr. Scriven-Young may be contacted at dscriven-young@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    September 23, 2019 —
    In New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v. TopBuild Home Servs., Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69634 (April 24, 2019), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently held that the “lesser of two” doctrine applies to subrogation actions, thereby limiting property damages to the lesser of repair costs or the property’s diminution in value. In New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co., New York Central Mutual Insurance Company’s (New York Central) insureds, Paul and Karen Mazzola, suffered a fire to their home. After the fire, New York Central paid the Mazzolas $708,465.74 to repair the property. New York Central brought a subrogation action against TopBuild Home Services, Inc. (TopBuild), alleging that the fire was caused by negligent work performed by TopBuild. New York Central sought to recover the repair costs it paid to the Mazzolas. TopBuild conceded liability but disputed the proper measure of damages. TopBuild filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that under the “lesser of two” doctrine, New York Central could recover only the lesser of the costs to repair the property or the property’s diminution in value. TopBuild, therefore, asserted that New York Central was not entitled to the repair costs of $708,465.74 but, rather, could recover only the property’s decline in value following the fire – approximately $250,000.[1] In response, New York Central argued that New York’s “lesser of two” doctrine does not apply to subrogation actions because an insurance company cannot mitigate the payment it makes to its insured. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

    Restoring the USS Alabama: Surety Lessons From an 80-Year-Old Battleship

    November 13, 2023 —
    It’s not every day that a construction company gets to renovate an 80-year-old battleship. Yet that’s exactly where Youngblood-Barrett Construction & Engineering workers found themselves when they began restoring the main deck of the USS Alabama, a storied World War II battleship. The USS Alabama has a remarkable past. One of four South Dakota–class battleships, the “Mighty A” was commissioned in 1942. It deployed first to the Atlantic and then to the Pacific, where it earned nine battle stars for meritorious service. At 680 feet long and 108 feet wide, the “Heroine of the Pacific” had a wartime crew of 2,500 men. By 1962, though, the Navy was ready to scrap it. That’s when the state of Alabama decided to acquire the ship and preserve it as a museum. The USS Alabama was moved to Mobile and opened to the public in January 1965. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Sghiatti, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The National Building Museum’s A-Mazing Showpiece

    July 09, 2014 —
    The “massive maze” designed by the Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) is now open at the National Building Museum in Washington D.C., reported Architect Magazine. The roughly 60-foot square maze reaches about 18 feet, but the “walls slope in toward the center, allowing visitors to see more of the maze as they move through it.” When you reach the center, you get a complete overview of the maze. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of