BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope 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


    Perez Broke Records … But Should He Have Settled Earlier?

    Why You Should Consider “In House Counsel”

    Lane Construction Sues JV Partner Skanska Over Orlando I-4 Project

    New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws

    Drone Operation in a Construction Zone

    Lake Texoma, Texas Condo Case may go to Trial

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Where Underlying Claim is Strictly Breach of Contract

    Professional Malpractice Statute of Limitations in Construction Context

    Georgia House Bill Addresses Construction Statute of Repose

    Toll Brothers Honored at the Shore Builders Association of Central New Jersey Awards

    Navigating Threshold Arbitration Issues in Construction Contracts

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports CDCCF Charity at 2014 WCC Seminar

    PSA: Virginia Repeals Its Permanent COVID-19 Safety Standard

    Texas Supreme Court Defines ‘Plaintiff’ in 3rd-Party Claims Against Design Professionals

    California Contractors: Amended Section 7141.5 Provides Important License Renewal Safety Net

    Living With a Millennial. Or Grandma.

    Construction Trust Fund Statutes: Know What’s Required in the State Where Your Project Is Underway

    Montana Trial Court Holds That Youths Have Standing to Bring Constitutional Claims Against State Government For Alleged Climate Change-Related Harms

    Anchoring Abuse: Evolution & Eradication

    Commonwealth Court Holds That Award of Attorney's Fees and Penalties is Mandatory Under the Procurement Code Upon a Finding of Bad Faith

    OPINION: Stop Requiring Exhibit Lists!

    Nevada Bill Aims to Reduce Legal Fees For Construction Defect Practitioners

    Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolute Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage For Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

    Material Prices Climb…And Climb…Are You Considering A Material Escalation Provision?

    Concerns About On-the-job Safety Persist

    Exploring Architects’ Perspectives on AI: A Survey of Fears and Hopes

    US Court Disputes $1.8B AECOM Damage Award in ‘Remarkable Fraud’ Suit

    How Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Decision Affects Coverage of Faulty Workmanship Claims

    Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Irma

    Rihanna Gained an Edge in Construction Defect Case

    Benefits to Insureds Under Property Insurance Policy – Concurrent Cause Doctrine

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

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

    Pennsylvania Modular Home Builder Buys Maine Firm

    Lightstone Committing $2 Billion to Hotel Projects

    Economic Damages Cannot be Based On Speculation

    Are Mechanic’s Liens the Be All End All of Construction Collections?

    New Tariffs Could Shorten Construction Expansion Cycle

    English High Court Finds That Business-Interruption Insurance Can Cover COVID-19 Losses

    New Jersey Law Firm Announces $4 Million Settlement from Construction Site Accident

    It Has Started: Supply-Chain, Warehouse and Retail Workers of Essential Businesses Are Filing Suit

    California Home Sellers Have Duty to Disclose Construction Defect Lawsuits

    U.S. Home Lending Set to Bounce Back in 2015 After Slump

    Just Because You Allege There Was an Oral Contract Doesn’t Mean You’re Off the Hook for Attorneys’ Fees if you Lose

    Housing to Top Capital Spending in Next U.S. Growth Leg: Economy

    Construction Defects Lead to “A Pretty Shocking Sight”

    Court Bars Licensed Contractor From Seeking Compensation for Work Performed by Unlicensed Sub

    Florida's New Pre-Suit Notification Requirement: Retroactive or Prospective Application?

    No Occurrence Where Contract Provides for Delays

    Hawaii Federal District Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement on Volcano Damage
    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

    Contingent Business Interruption Claim Denied

    April 08, 2014 —
    The insured's claim for contingent business interruption ("CBI") coverage was denied in Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Ltd. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh Pa., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3096 (4th Cir. Feb. 20, 2014). Millenium processed titanium dioxide, a compound used for its white pigmentation, at its plant in Western Australia. Millennium purchased natural gas to process the titanium dioxide from Alinta Sales Pty Ltd., a natural gas supplier. Alinta purchased gas from Apache Corporation. Once Apache processed the natural gas, it was injected into a pipeline. The gas from Apache's facility was commingled with that obtained from other producers, resulting in a mix of gas in a single pipeline. Alinta had sole ownership of the gas once it entered the pipeline. Under Alinta's contract with Millennium, title to the gas passed to Millenium only at the time of delivery, i.e., when the gas left the pipeline and was delivered to Millennium's facility through a separate delivery line. Millennium had no contract or business relationship with Apache, and the contract it had with Alinta made no reference to Apache. An explosion occurred at Apache's facility causing its natural gas production to cease. As a result, Millennium's gas supply was curtailed, and it was force to shut down its operations for a number of months. 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

    Sacramento’s Commercial Construction Market Heats Up

    September 10, 2014 —
    One reason I changed law firms from the Bay Area to Sacramento was I felt that Sacramento’s construction market, which was one of the areas hardest hit in California following the Real Estate Bubble Burst, was poised for a comeback. And as with past real estate cycles, residential construction has led the growth, and is now being followed by commercial construction. Indeed, according to data compiled by Engineering News-Record, commercial and institutional projects are propelling Sacramento’s construction market[.] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

    New York Court Finds No Coverage Owed for Asbestos Losses Because Insured Failed to Prove Material Terms

    February 15, 2021 —
    In the long-tail insurance context, it is not unusual to have issues arise addressing “lost” or “missing” policies. In an opinion issued on January 22, 2021, a New York court ruled that an insurer did not owe coverage to its insured for underlying asbestos claims because the insured had failed to establish the material terms of a “lost” policy under which it sought coverage for the underlying claims. The lawsuit, Cosmopolitan Shipping Company, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Company,[1] arose out of a coverage dispute between Plaintiff Cosmopolitan Shipping Co., Inc. (Cosmopolitan) and its insurance carrier, Continental Insurance Company (CIC), in connection with bodily injury claims arising out of asbestos exposure. The case provides a good analysis of what an insured must do to establish coverage under a “lost” or “missing” policy. During and after World War II, Cosmopolitan chartered and operated a number of shipping vessels on behalf of United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA). In the 1980s, seamen who had worked on board Cosmopolitan’s vessels between 1946 and 1948 filed lawsuits against Cosmopolitan seeking damages for injuries arising out of alleged exposure to asbestos on Cosmopolitan’s vessels. Cosmopolitan sought coverage from CIC for the claims, alleging that CIC had insured Cosmopolitan’s vessels during the relevant time period under a protection and indemnity policy issued to the UNRAA (the P&I Policy). Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Marianne E. Bradley, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Substantial Completion Explained: What Contractors & Owners Should Know

    January 17, 2022 —
    A project’s Substantial Completion date is a critical construction milestone for contractors and owners. Depending on the contract, the date of Substantial Completion has project-specific contractual and statutory consequences. Substantial Completion is an “event” – there is no universal definition of the term. It is generally understood to be (1) a point in time (2) when work performed by the contractor is sufficiently complete (3) where it can be used or occupied for the owner’s intended purpose. The date of Substantial Completion is generally established at the time of contract formation (either as a negotiated or a contract set date), and that date may be adjusted over the course of a project to account for excusable delays. As a construction professional, your attorney should review and tailor any written agreement to your project-specific needs and risk tolerances prior to execution. Savvy construction professionals often start with standard form agreements promulgated by the American Institute of Architects (“AIA”), the Design-Build Institute of America (“DBIA”), or the Engineers Joint Contract Document Committee (“EJCDC”) as the basis for their construction contracts. The AIA, DBIA, and EJCDC standard forms each contains contract provisions relating to when and what happens once Substantial Completion has occurred, subject to any agreed-to, project-specific deviations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
    Mr. Colburn may be contacted at travis.colburn@acslawyers.com

    Quick Note: Discretion in Determining Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    January 25, 2021 —
    In prior articles I have discussed that courts apply the significant issues test to determine the prevailing party for purposes of being entitled to attorney’s fees. A party that recovers an affirmative judgement is NOT the de facto prevailing party for purposes of an entitlement to attorney’s fees in a breach of contract action (or a construction lien foreclosure action). This was the issue in a recent appeal discussed here where the party that recovered an affirmative judgment on a breach of contract case was not deemed the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees. While the party prevailed on one of its claims, it did not prevail on others, and it recovered less than half of the damages it originally sought. The appellate court, affirming the trial court, held that the trial court has discretion to determine that the party that recovered an affirmative judgement was not the prevailing party entitled to its attorney’s fees under the signifiant issues test. This was not what the party was expecting when the attorney’s fees it expended far exceeded the judgment it recovered. 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

    Judge Nixes SC's $100M Claim Over MOX Construction Delays

    February 16, 2017 —
    A federal judge on Feb. 8 dismissed a claim by the state of South Carolina against the U.S. Dept. of Energy over delayed construction of the Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, near Aiken, S.C. The claim for financial compensation was part of a lawsuit the state filed in February 2016 seeking payment of $1 million per day—or an annual maximum of $100 million—for the MOX facility not producing fuel by Jan. 1, 2016. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “The New Empty Chair.”

    June 04, 2024 —
    In a unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court ruled that cases in litigation in federal court but which are determined to be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act should be stayed pending arbitration, not dismissed. Traditionally, some federal circuits treated the text of 9 U.S.C. §3 – which speaks in terms of a stay of a matter filed in court but referred to arbitration (“…shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement…”) – as discretionary, dismissing suits when all of the claims brought in the court were referred to arbitration. In the case, the plaintiffs sued in Arizona state court on labor law violations, and the case was removed to federal court. When the defendant moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss, the plaintiffs “conceded that all of their claims were arbitrable.” Nonetheless, the plaintiffs requested a stay of the case, which the district court refused, dismissing the case without prejudice. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment Based Upon Vandalism Exclusion

    June 18, 2014 —
    The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of contract claim because there was a disputed issue of fact regarding the applicability of the vandalism exclusion. Poole v. Untied Servs. Auto. Assn., 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2394 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 16, 2014). The plaintiff rented a residence to tenants. The tenants performed repairs to the residence which resulted in damage in excess of $126,000. The tenants vacated the residence. The plaintiff submitted a claim to USAA for benefits under her homeowners' policy. USAA denied coverage based upon exclusions for damage caused by, among other things, faulty workmanship, renovation and remodeling. Plaintiff sued and USAA moved for summary judgment. 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