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


    Important Insurance Alert for Out-of-State Contractors Assisting in Florida Recovery Efforts!

    Court Grants Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment After Insured Fails to Provide Evidence of Systemic Collapse

    Business Interruption, Food Spoilage Claims Resulting from Off Premise Power Failure Denied

    There Was No Housing Bubble in 2008 and There Isn’t One Now

    Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

    Managing Partner Jeff Dennis Recognized as One of the Most Influential Business People & Opinion Shapers in Orange County

    The Rubber Hits the Ramp: A Maryland Personal Injury Case

    Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

    Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

    Construction in the Time of Coronavirus

    Balancing Cybersecurity Threats in Smart Cities: Is the Potential Convenience of “Smart” Intersections Worth the Risk?

    Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage

    Georgia Coal-to-Solar Pivot Shows the Way on Climate Regs

    New Home Sales Slip, but Still Strong

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Ursinus is Cleared!”

    Examining Construction Defect as Occurrence in Recent Case Law and Litigation

    Narrow Promissory Estoppel Exception to Create Insurance Coverage

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

    Louisiana Court Applies Manifestation Trigger to Affirm Denial of Coverage

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/11/23) – Millennials Struggle Finding Homes, Additional CHIPS Act Funding Available, and the Supreme Court Takes up Hotel Lawsuit Case

    Key California Employment Law Cases: October 2018

    How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?

    Michigan Court of Appeals Remands Construction Defect Case

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected for the 2024 Edition of Best Lawyers and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch

    Public-Private Partnerships: When Will Reality Meet the Promise?

    Construction Defect Journal Seeks Article Submissions Regarding SB800 and Other Builders Right to Repair Laws

    Tariffs, Supply Snarls Spur Search for Factories Closer to U.S.

    What to Know Before Building a Guesthouse

    Virginia Allows Condominium Association’s Insurer to Subrogate Against a Condominium Tenant

    These Pioneers Are Already Living the Green Recovery

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Falls Requiring Time Off from Work are Increasing

    How a 10-Story Wood Building Survived More Than 100 Earthquakes

    Denial of Coverage for Bulge in Wall Upheld

    Overview of New Mexico Construction Law

    Norristown, PA to Stop Paying Repair Costs for Defect-Ridden Condo

    Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit

    California Supreme Court Allows Claim Under Unfair Competition Statute To Proceed

    OSHA Joins the EEOC in Analyzing Unsafe Construction Environments

    Labor Shortage Confirmed Through AGC Poll

    Lewis Brisbois Moves to Top 15 in Law360 2022 Diversity Snapshot

    Breach of a Construction Contract & An Equitable Remedy?

    New York's De Blasio Unveils $41 Billion Plan for Affordable Housing

    Washington State Updates the Contractor Registration Statute

    Contractors Sued for Slip

    He's the Top U.S. Mortgage Salesman. His Daughter Isn't Buying It

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Brokers' MSJ on Duties Owed In Construction Defect Case

    Additional Elements a Plaintiff Must Plead and Prove to Enforce Restrictive Covenant
    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

    Insured's Complaint Against Flood Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    May 07, 2014 —
    The insurer's attempt to dismiss the insured's multi-count complaint for failure to provide full coverage for flood damage failed. Ragusa Corp. v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40812 (D. Conn. March 27, 2014). The insureds' house suffered significant damage due to flood associated with Hurricane Irene. The insureds submitted a claim. Standard Fire paid $35,216.75, well below what the insureds thought they were owed. The insureds returned the check and demanded what they believed was full payment. The insureds demanded an appraisal because the parties did not agree on the amount being paid under the policy, including disagreement about the amount owed for items that both sides agreed were covered under the policy. Standard Fire refused to participate in an appraisal. The insureds ended up suing Standard Fire, alleging, among other things, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 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

    You Have Choices (Litigation Versus Mediation)

    December 14, 2020 —
    As I sit here thinking about an impending trial in the Goochland County General District Court, it hit me that I also serve as a mediator in that court from time to time. Coincidentally, I will be “wearing both hats” (litigator and mediator) this week on back to back days. It will be interesting to have to switch roles so quickly on back to back days. While I don’t have the results of this thought experiment as I sit here typing this post, the timeline does bring into focus the two possible avenues to resolve a dispute. Neither is perfect and either works in the proper situation. Both lend a final “result” and closure to the dispute, they just each do so in a different manner and with a different role for me, the construction attorney/construction mediator. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Disputed Facts on Cause of Collapse Results in Denied Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

    January 31, 2018 —

    Although the court concluded that the policy covered a loss caused by the weight of snow, disputed facts as to the cause of the collapse led to the denial of cross-motions for summary judgment. Freeway Drive Inv., LLC v Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 2017 U.S Dist. LEXIS 207165 (E.D Mich. Dec. 18, 2017).

    Freeway Drive owned a single story commercial building insured by Employers Mutual Casualty Company (EMCC). The building sustained damage when trusses within the roof shifted and dropped, causing visible sagging. EMCC denied Freeway Drive's claim.

    Freeway Drive hired structural engineer Abdul Brinjikji to inspect the damage. He visited the building three times. On the first visit, he saw snow on the roof but could not estimate how much. Nevertheless, he opined that the collapse was caused by an overload of snow. He developed a plan to shore up the roof and repairs commenced.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawarii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Proximity Trace Used to Monitor, Maintain Social Distancing on $1.9-Billion KCI Airport Project

    September 07, 2020 —
    In order to maintain social distancing on site, steel erector National Steel City of Plymouth, Mich., is using the Proximity Trace wearable sensor from Triax Technologies on the $1.9-billion Kansas City International Airport (KCI) single-terminal reconstruction project. Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Is A Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound by A Default or Default Judgment Against Its Principal?

    February 08, 2021 —
    Maguire-O’Hara Construction, Inc. v. Cool Roofing Systems, Inc., 2020 WL 6532852 (W.D. Oklahoma 2020) is an interesting case dealing with suretyship law and the subject of whether a Miller Act payment bond surety is bound by a default or default judgment against its prime contractor (bond principal). In this case, a subcontractor sued a prime contractor for breach of contract and the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety for a breach of the payment bond. The prime contractor did not respond to the lawsuit and the subcontractor obtained a default against the contractor. The Miller Act payment bond surety did engage counsel to defend itself in the dispute. Prior to trial, the subcontractor moved in limine to preclude the surety from raising defenses at trial under the subcontract because a default was entered against the prime contractor. The subcontractor argued that the surety should be bound by the default and, therefore, precluded from raising liability defenses under the subcontract. Such a ruling would leave the surety no defenses disputing liability at trial.
    [A] suretys’ liability under the Miller Act coincides with that of the general contractor, its principal. Accordingly, a surety [can] plead any defenses available to its principal but [can]not make a defense that could not be made by its principal. Maguire-O’Hara Construction, supra, at *2 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
    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

    Taylor Morrison Home Corp’ New San Jose Development

    October 15, 2014 —
    The Silicon Valley Business Journal reported that Taylor Morrison Home Corp has made the “biggest land acquisition so far in San Jose” after acquiring “an 8-acre chunk of dirt in the developing Montecito Vista area where it has plans to build out 184 townhomes.” The developer “paid about $32.5 million, or roughly $176,600 per buildable unit, for the land, according to public tax records,” according to the Silicon Valley Business Journal. Construction is scheduled to begin November of 2015 and models should be ready by April of 2016. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Defense Owed to Directors and Officers Despite Insured vs. Insured Exclusion

    May 13, 2014 —
    The court found there the duty to defend a suit filed by the FDIC against officers and directors was not excluded by the insured versus insured provision in the policy. W Holding Co., Inc. v. AIG Ins. Co. - Puerto Rico, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5943 (1st Cir. March 31, 2014). Regulators ordered the closure of the insured bank and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed as receiver. FDIC concluded certain bank directors and officers had breached their fiduciary duty by jeopardizing the bank's financial soundness. The FDIC concluded these breaches had caused more than $367 million in losses and demanded reimbursement by the directors and officers. 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

    Insured's Claim for Water Damage Dismissed with Leave to Amend

    August 12, 2024 —
    The court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss the insured's claim for water damage under a homeowners' policy, but granted leave to amend. Thompson v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98486 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2024). The insureds' first amended complaint alleged they "suffered a sudden and accidental water loss below their slab in their home." A plumber hired by the insureds discovered "a copper pipe burst inside a structural concrete footing between a manifold in the living room and the water heater." The insureds notified their insurer, State Farm. Claim adjuster Andrea Acevedo conducted a visual inspection. The complaint alleged she did not "inspect or view the pipe, or have a testing conducted on the pipe." Acevedo sent a letter denying the insureds' claim based upon her finding that "because the loss was caused by a slab leak, there is no coverage available for the loss." The letter explained that the hot water supply line under the home failed due to wear, tear, deterioration and/or electrolysis. The predominant cause of loss to the failed pipe was due to one or a combination of rust, electrolysis, corrosion, wear, tear and/or deterioration. The policy did not cover water damage caused by water from below the surface of the ground. Further coverage for wear, tear, deterioration, rot, mold, maintenance, water from below the surface of the ground and a continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water was excluded. 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