BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design 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


    SE 2050 Is In Quixotic Pursuit of Eliminating Embodied Carbon in Building Structures

    Traub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis Obtain Affirmation of Final Summary Judgment

    New York Court Rules on Architect's Duty Under Contract and Tort Principles

    Courthouse Reporter Series - How to Avoid Having Your COVID-19 Expert Stricken

    Breaking News: Connecticut Supreme Court Decides Significant Coverage Issues in R.T. Vanderbilt

    HP Unveils Cheaper, 3-D Printing System to Spur Sales

    Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<

    Inspired by Filipino Design, an Apartment Building Looks Homeward

    Subcontractors Found Liable to Reimburse Insurer Defense Costs in Equitable Subrogation Action

    Back to Basics – Differing Site Conditions

    English v. RKK. . . The Saga Continues

    Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

    Design Immunity Defense Gets Special Treatment on Summary Judgment

    No Coverage for Installation of Defective Steel Framing

    Avoiding Disaster Due to Improper Licensing

    Contractor May Be Barred Until Construction Lawsuit Settled

    The Impact of the IIJA and Amended Buy American Act on the Construction Industry

    South Caroline Holds Actual Cash Value Can Include Depreciation of Labor Costs

    Reversing Itself, Alabama Supreme Court Finds Construction Defect is An Occurrence

    Residential Construction Rise Expected to Continue

    Discussing Parametric Design with Shajay Bhooshan of Zaha Hadid Architects

    Mixing Concrete, Like Baking a Cake, is Fraught with Problems When the Recipe is Not Followed

    Earthquake Hits Mid-Atlantic Region; No Immediate Damage Reports

    There Is No Sympathy If You Fail to Read Closely the Final Negotiated Construction Contract

    Product Liability Alert: Evidence of Apportionment of Fault Admissible in Strict Products Liability Action

    Meet D1's Neutrals Series: BILL FRANCZEK

    Continuous Injury Trigger Applied to Property Loss

    Fifth Circuit Holds Insurer Owes Duty to Defend Latent Condition Claim That Caused Fire Damage to Property Years After Construction Work

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Water Damage Claims

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 4: Coverage for Supply Chain Related Losses

    Contractors Set to Implement Air Quality Upgrades for Healthier Buildings

    Appetite for Deconstruction

    North Carolina Exclusion j(6) “That Particular Part”

    ABC, Via Construction Industry Safety Coalition, Comments on Silica Rule

    No Duty To Defend Additional Insured When Bodily Injury Not Caused by Insured

    OSHA Extends Temporary Fall Protection Rules

    Helsinki Stream City: A Re-imagining Outside the System

    Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Serves as Chair of the ABA Minority Trial Lawyer Committee’s Programming Subcommittee

    South Carolina Court of Appeals Diverges from Damico Opinion, Sending Recent Construction Defects Cases to Arbitration

    BWB&O Partner Tyler Offenhauser and Associate Lizbeth Lopez Won Their Motion for Summary Judgment Based on the Privette Doctrine

    Remodel Gets Pricey for Town

    Emergency Paid Sick Leave and FMLA Leave Updates in Response to COVID-19

    Texas Supreme Court Rules on Contractual Liability Exclusion in Construction Cases

    Builders Arrested after Building Collapses in India

    Limiting Services Can Lead to Increased Liability

    Another Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

    Mondaq’s 2023 Construction Comparative Guide

    Trump Administration Waives Border Wall Procurement Rules

    Environmental and Regulatory Law Update: New Federal and State Rulings

    New Plan Submitted for Explosive Demolition of Old Tappan Zee Bridge
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Use Your Instincts when Negotiating a Construction Contract

    August 07, 2018 —
    I have often discussed the more “mechanical” aspects of contract negotiation and drafting here at Construction Law Musings. However, there is another, less objective (possibly) and more “feel” oriented aspect to construction contracting that can have as big an impact on your construction project. What am I talking about? Your instinct as a construction professional when looking the other party in the eye and getting a feel for the company or individual with whom you are contracting. Why is this so important? Firstly, and this is a truism, no matter how well drafted your construction contract is (and it should be well drafted and reviewed by an experienced construction attorney), if the other party wishes to “play games” and not honor the terms of that contract, you could still very well end up in litigation with the attendant frustration and expense. Having a great looking, well thought out and at least reasonably “fair” construction contract may make the litigation process somewhat less painful but it does not completely avoid the risk of litigation. If the other party or parties to the contract decide not to pay you or perform as they promised, you are left to enforce whatever contract you have in place. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Lien Law Unlikely To Change — Yet

    May 26, 2011 —

    For those of you following the proposed revisions to the NC lien law that is currently at the NC House Judiciary Subcommittee B, a quick update: the proposed bill (HB 489) is unlikely to be voted on this legislative session due to its unpopularity with several constituency groups, including both the AIA-North Carolinaand the NC Home Builders Association.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Brumback of Ragsdale Liggett PLLC. Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com.

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

    Cross-Office Team Secures Defense Verdict in Favor of Client in Asbestos Case

    November 18, 2024 —
    St. Louis/Kansas City, Mo. (October 23, 2024) - St. Louis Partners Tracy J. Cowan and Karen M. Volkman, along with Kansas City Partner Vincent Gunter, secured a defense verdict in a Jackson County, Missouri matter on behalf of a Lewis Brisbois client, which was the successor-in-interest to a life, health and reinsurance firm, against claims brought by an individual who worked in the corporate headquarters and was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Background The plaintiff was 62 years old when she was diagnosed with mesothelioma. She worked as a clerk for several years in the 1970s in a 19-story office building that opened in 1963. The plaintiff claimed construction work being performed in the areas where she worked exposed her to asbestos from above the suspended ceiling. The beams and girders in the building were fireproofed with sprayed-on insulation. Although the plaintiff did not perform any maintenance work, she relied on evidence from several operating engineers who worked above the ceiling near the fireproofing to establish the presence of asbestos in the building. The plaintiff submitted claims for negligence and unsafe workplace. At the beginning of trial, the LBBS client had a pending motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was governed by the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law. The Court denied a motion to continue the trial and submitted the workers’ compensation issue as an affirmative defense. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Assignment of Insured's Policy Ineffective

    April 06, 2016 —
    An assignment of policy rights made before the policy was issued was ineffective. W. Alliance Bank v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19936 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2016). The bank issued a loan to Sorrento Networks, Inc. in 2011. As collateral, Sorrento gave the bank a continuing security interest in all of Sorrento's personal property, including its inventory, commercial tort claims and insurance proceeds. The loan agreement authorized the back to act on Sorrento's behalf in collecting any money owed to Sorrento and prosecuting any claims that Sorrento might have. 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

    Landmark Towers Association, Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A. or: One Bad Apple Spoils the Whole Bunch

    May 12, 2016 —
    On April 21, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued an opinion that immediately drew the ire of the greater real estate development industry and those concerned about affordable housing in a state in the midst of unprecedented soaring rent and housing prices. The Landmark Towers Assn., Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A., 2016 COA 61, decision is the result of protracted litigation arising out of construction and sale of the ill-fated European Village (“Village”) residential community. For a thorough summary of the origins of the development and the unfortunate story of the man behind the curtain, review the Denver Post’s article titled “Zachary Davidson, Denver Landmark developer, and his fall from grace.” (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22656011/fall-from-grace-zach-davidson-landmark denver) Despite the unique facts and circumstances relating to the questionable dealings by the developer, Mr. Zachary Davidson, the decision now stands to turn the Colorado real estate development business on its head. Specifically, a group of condominium owners, who did not live in the Village, learned that their properties had been included in a special district, the Marin Metropolitan District (“District”), to finance the Village. Prior to their purchase, Mr. Davidson failed to disclose to the condominium owners that they would be responsible for financing the Village’s development through previously issued bonds by the District to be paid for through their property taxes. Understandably frustrated by this discovery the condominium owners, through the Landmark Towers Association, Inc. (“Landmark HOA”), investigated the origin of these unforeseen property taxes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Meyer may be contacted at meyer@hhmrlaw.com

    Former Superintendent Sentenced in Rhode Island Tainted Fill Case

    July 05, 2023 —
    A federal judge sentenced a contractor’s former superintendent June 20 for misleading officials about the source of fill and quality of contaminated fill used on the $410 million Route 6/10 interchange project in Rhode Island. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Montana Court Finds Duty to Defend over Construction Defect Allegation

    February 14, 2013 —
    The U.S. District Court for Montana recently ruled on a case with underlying construction defect issues. Brian Margolies discussed Lukes v. Mid-Continent on the blog run by his firm, Traub Lieverman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP. In the construction defect case, the homeowner “alleged that the siding warped and pulled away from the house, which allowed for water intrusion and resulting exterior and interior damage.” Further, there were claims that “the insured or its subcontractor failed to install proper flashing, which also allowed for water intrusion.” The insured was Bernie Rubio, who had a general liability policy from Mid-Continent. Mid-Continent disclaimed coverage, citing sections of the business risk exclusions. The court did not find the clauses ambiguous, but concluded that they didn’t apply to the facts of the case. While the court concluded that Mid-Continent had a duty to defend, they did not determine if there was a duty to indemnify. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida Law: Interplay of SIR and the Made-Whole Doctrine

    March 12, 2015 —
    Amanda Baggett of Roger Towers explained the nuances of self-insured retention or “SIR,” which “typically refers to a dollar amount stated in a liability policy that the insured must satisfy before the insurer is required to defend or indemnify a claim.” Baggett stated that most of the time, the SIR is satisfied by the insurer paying the initial defense costs up to the SIR. However, “the Florida Supreme Court has held that an insured may satisfy the SIR using funds received from a third party. Intervest Construction of Jax, Inc. v. General Fidelity Ins. Co., 133 So. 3d 494 (Fla. 2014).” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of