BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction claims 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


    Federal District Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Implementation of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Final Rule

    Insurers' Motion to Knock Out Bad Faith, Negligent Misrepresentation Claims in Construction Defect Case Denied

    Construction Contract’s Scope of Work Should Be Written With Clarity

    Vietnam Expands Arrests in Coffee Region Property Probe

    Interior Designer Licensure

    Recovering Attorney’s Fees and Treble Damages in Washington DC Condominium Construction Defect Cases

    Traub Lieberman Partner Michael K. Kiernan and Associate Brandon Christian Obtain Dismissal with Prejudice in Favor of Defendant

    Reservation of Rights Letter Merely Citing Policy Provisions Inadequate

    Rise in Single-Family Construction Anticipated in Michigan

    Owners Bound by Arbitration Clause on Roofing Shingles Packaging

    Mexico City Metro Collapse Kills 24 After Neighbors’ Warnings

    Antitrust Walker Process Claims Not Covered Under Personal Injury Coverage for Malicious Prosecution

    The Rise of Modular Construction – Impacts for Consideration

    Quick Note: Lis Pendens Bond When Lis Pendens Not Founded On Recorded Instrument Or Statute

    Save A Legal Fee? Sometimes You Better Talk With Your Construction Attorney

    Eleventh Circuit Affirms Jury Verdict on Covered Property Loss

    Expert Medical Science Causation Testimony Improperly Excluded under Daubert; ID of Sole Cause of Medical Condition Not Required

    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Rules General Contractors Can Contractually Subordinate Mechanics Lien Rights

    The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on Construction Businesses

    Construction Needs Collaborative Planning

    OSHA Joins the EEOC in Analyzing Unsafe Construction Environments

    Insured's Claim for Replacement Cost Denied

    Hurry Up and Wait! Cal/OSHA Hits Pause on Emergency Temporary Standards for COVID-19 Prevention

    Repairing One’s Own Work and the one Year Statute of Limitations to Sue a Miller Act Payment Bond

    A Survey of New Texas Environmental and Regulatory Laws Enacted in the 88th Session (Updated)

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    Anti-Concurrent, Anti-Sequential Causation Clause Precludes Coverage

    Chicago Cubs Agree to Make Wrigley Field ADA Improvements to Settle Feds' Lawsuit

    4 Ways to Mitigate Construction Disputes

    AI – A Designer’s Assistant or a Replacement?

    Vaccine Mandate Confusion Continues – CMS Vaccine Mandate Restored in Some (But Not All) US States

    Drones Give Inspectors a Closer Look at Bridges

    Hunton Insurance Partner, Larry Bracken, Elected to the American College of Coverage Counsel

    French Laundry Spices Up COVID-19 Business Interruption Debate

    Three Attorneys Named Among The Best Lawyers in America 2018

    A Relatively Small Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

    Additional Insurance Coverage Determined for General Contractor

    Flood Sublimits Do Not Apply to Loss Caused by Named Windstorm

    Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Negligence Claim Against Flood Insurer

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

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    “Positive Limiting Barriers” Are An Open and Obvious Condition, Relieving Owner of Duty to Warn

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Illinois Legislature Passes Bill Allowing Punitive Damages In Most Wrongful Death Actions

    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

    Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

    Reminder: A Little Pain Now Can Save a Lot of Pain Later

    Attorneys’ Fees and the American Arbitration Association Rule

    Rhode Island District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Case for Spoliation Due to Potential Unfair Prejudice to Defendant

    Transplants Send Nashville Home Market Upwards
    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

    Iowa Court Holds Defective Work Performed by Insured's Subcontractor Constitutes an "Occurrence"

    July 28, 2016 —
    The Iowa Supreme Court held that property damage caused by a subcontractor's defective work was an "occurrence." Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Westlake Invs., LLC, 2016 Iowa LEXIS 71 (Iowa June 10, 2016). In 2002, the insureds, the developers and general contractor, began construction on an apartment complex. While the complex was still under construction, it was purchased by Westlake Investments, LLC. During construction, numerous problems surfaced, including visible water penetration issues in several buildings. In February 2008, Westlake sued the insureds, seeking to recover lost profits, repair costs, and other damages under tort and contract theories. Arch Insurance Group defended under the primary policy. A settlement was eventually reached whereby a consent judgment for $15,600,000 was entered against the insureds and in favor of Westlake. Arch contributed its policy limits of $1,000,000 to the settlement. Other third party defendants contributed $1,737,500, leaving $12,762,500 of the judgment unsatisfied. The insureds assigned rights under their excess policy with National Surety Corporation (NSC) to Westlake. NSC's policy was a following-form policy. 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

    Landlords Challenge U.S. Eviction Ban and Continue to Oust Renters

    October 25, 2020 —
    In September, the Trump administration announced a national moratorium on evictions, via an order by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention aimed at reducing the spread of coronavirus. The four-month temporary suspension applies to any tenant who can’t make rent due to economic conditions and who presents a written declaration about their circumstances to their landlord. But the CDC ban now faces legal challenges on multiple fronts, even as landlords continue to routinely file evictions for nonpayment of rent — the very outcome that the order was designed to prevent. On Oct. 20, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia heard the first case against the moratorium, Richard Lee Brown, et al. v. Secretary Alex Azar, et al.. That challenge, brought by a nonprofit called the New Civil Liberties Alliance, has been joined by the National Apartment Association, which represents some 85,000 landlords responsible for 10 million rental units. Lawyers and scholars working on behalf of plaintiffs in the cases say that the CDC lacks the constitutional authority to enact a policy affecting rents. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kriston Capps, Bloomberg

    Stormy Skies Ahead? Important News Regarding a Hard Construction Insurance Market

    August 13, 2019 —
    Word out of the construction insurance brokerage community is that the construction insurance industry has entered a hard market, seemingly overnight. Property (i.e. builder’s risk), liability and wrap-up markets are all reacting unfavorably, resulting in higher premiums and decreased availability of coverage options. The prospect of a hard market has been looming for some time given massive weather driven property losses and historically low rates (among other factors). It appears the time is upon us. Key takeaways for construction professionals are:
    • Expect insurance premiums to go up, potentially significantly, at renewal time and/or when seeking a new project specific program (e.g., an OCIP, CCIP, etc.).
    • Expect that the available coverage will get worse. Carriers may be unable to offer once standard coverage enhancements and/or may add new exclusions.
    • If quotes have been offered consider locking them in now, before the underwriters are forced to increase the rates/restrict coverage, or pull the quotes entirely.
    • With respect to wrap-ups and other project specific programs, consider requesting extensions now if the project is expected to go beyond the current policy term.
    • As always, the risk management team (lawyer, broker, risk manager) should work together to carefully review contracts and coverage. This will become even more important if the carriers start to introduce new exclusions as a result of the hard market.
    Hard markets come and go. The tough times are when true construction insurance professionals separate themselves from the pack and become the key to weathering the storm. Jason M. Adams, Esq. is Senior Counsel at Gibbs Giden representing construction professionals (owners/developers, contractors, architects, etc.) in the areas of Construction Law, Insurance Law and Risk Management, Common Interest Community Law (HOA) and Business/Civil Litigation. Adams is also a licensed property and casualty insurance broker and certified Construction Risk & Insurance Specialist (CRIS). Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. Mr. Adams can be reached at jadams@gibbsgiden.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado Senate Bill 15-177: This Year’s Attempt at Reasonable Construction Defect Reform

    February 18, 2015 —
    On February 10, 2015, Senators Scheffer and Ulibarri introduced Senate Bill 15-177, which is sponsored in the House by Representatives DelGrosso and Singer. SB 15-177 amends the prerequisites, found in the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”), for an association to file a construction defect action. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Committee on Business, Labor, and Technology but not yet scheduled for hearing. The major points of the bill include: 1) enforcement of a mediation or arbitration provision contained in the original governing documents of a common interest community, even if subsequently amended or removed; 2) the addition of a requirement that mediation take place before a construction defect action can be filed; 3) heightened requirements that an association board provide advanced notice to all unit owners, together with a disclosure of projected costs, duration, and financial impact of the construction defect claim; 4) the addition of a requirement that the board obtain the written consent of a majority of the owners of units, and; 5) a requirement that prior to the purchase and sale of a property in a common interest community, the purchaser receive notice that binding arbitration may be required for certain disputes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Zach McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLeroy may be contacted at mcleroy@hhmrlaw.com

    Federal Magistrate Judge Recommends Rescission of Policies

    February 12, 2024 —
    In the recent case of Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. 142 Driggs LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220393, Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recommended granting the insurer's default judgment and holding that of three policies issued to 142 Driggs LLC ("Driggs") be rescinded ab initio. Driggs had represented on its insurance applications that it did not provide parking to anyone other than itself, tenants, and its guests at the subject insured premises. However, Union Mutual learned that Driggs had been renting out three garages to non-tenants. Second, Driggs represented that the mercantile square footage was around 1,000 square feet, when in actuality, it was larger than allowed under the policies. Union Mutual provided underwriting guidelines in connection with its default motion, which state that "parking provided for anyone other than the insured, tenants and their guests," presents an "unacceptable risk." The guidelines also state that answering yes to any "preliminary application questions (which presumably included those regarding mercantile square footage and parking) is an "unacceptable risk." The court held that these guidelines supported a finding that Driggs made material misrepresentation and that Union Mutual relied on these misrepresentations in issuing the policies. The court, as such, recommended that the policies at issue be rescinded from inception. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

    Wendel Rosen Construction Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers

    August 30, 2017 —
    Two members of Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group were recognized recently. Garret Murai was selected for inclusion in the 2017 list of Northern California Super Lawyers and Matthew Graham was selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2018 edition. Garret Is co-chair of the firm’s Construction Practice Group and Matt is a 30+ year veteran of construction law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Engineers Found ‘Hundreds’ of Cracks in California Bridge

    January 24, 2014 —
    Engineers spotted “hundreds” of cracks in welds on parts produced for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in 2008 and were encouraged to stay quiet rather than delay the $6.4 billion project, according to a California Senate committee report. James Merrill, then a senior engineer with a quality assurance company known as Mactec, told Senate investigators that his complaints about work done at Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industry Co. Ltd. (900947), known as ZPMC, were rebuffed by managers of the California Department of Transportation as “too rigorous,” according to the report released yesterday. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James Nash, Bloomberg News
    Mr. Nash may be contacted at jnash24@bloomberg.net

    Appellate Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

    June 29, 2017 —
    The significant issues test to determine the prevailing party in construction lien actions (which, by the way, also applies to breach of contract actions) applies to appellate attorney’s fees too! Under this test, the trial court has discretion to determine which party prevailed on the significant issues of the case for purposes of attorney’s fees. The trial court also has discretion to determine that neither party was the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees. In a recent decision, Bauer v. Ready Windows Sales & Service Corp., 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1417a (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), there were competing motions for appellate attorney’s fees. Both parties believed they should be deemed the prevailing party under Florida Statute s. 713.29 (statute that authorizes prevailing party attorney’s fees under Florida’s Construction Lien Law). The appellate court held that neither party was the prevailing party under the significant issues test: “[W]e conclude that each party lost on their appeal, while each party successfully defended that part of the judgment in their favor on the other party’s cross-appeal. Because both parties prevailed on significant issues, this Court finds that appellate fees are not warranted for either party.” Bauer, supra. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com