BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut fenestration 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


    Coronavirus Is Starting to Slow the Solar Energy Revolution

    ‘The Ground Just Gave Out’: How a Storm’s Fury Ravaged Asheville

    Lawsuit Gives Teeth to Massachusetts Pay Law

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Reject Collapse Coverage Denied

    Dust Obscures Eleventh Circuit’s Ruling on “Direct Physical Loss”

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

    New York: The "Loss Transfer" Opportunity to Recover Otherwise Non-Recoverable First-Party Benefits

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    Plaintiffs’ Claims in Barry v. Weyerhaeuser Company are Likely to Proceed after Initial Hurdle

    Harmon Tower Construction Defects Update: Who’s To Blame?

    Navigating the Hurdles of Florida Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Are Proprietary Specifications Illegal?

    Anthony Garasi, Jared Christensen and August Hotchkin are Recognized as Nevada Legal Elite

    Will Maryland Beltway Developer's Exit Doom $7.6B P3 Project?

    Parks and Degradation: The Mess at Yosemite

    Insurer Must Cover Construction Defects Claims under Actual Injury Rule

    Preserving Lien Rights on Private Projects in Washington: Three Common Mistakes to Avoid

    New Survey Reveals Present-Day Risks of Asbestos Exposure in America - 38% in High-Risk Jobs, 47% Vulnerable through Second-Hand Exposure

    Collaborating or Competing with Construction Tech Startups

    City and Contractor Disclaim Responsibility for Construction Error that Lead to Blast

    Insurer's In-House Counsel's Involvement in Coverage Decision Opens Door to Discovery

    Modular Homes Test Energy Efficiency Standards

    What Cal/OSHA’s “Permanent” COVID Standards Mean for Employers

    Investigators Eye Fiber Optic Work in Deadly Wisconsin Explosion

    The Latest News on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

    A Tuesday With Lisa Colon

    California Supreme Court Declares that Exclusionary Rule for Failing to Comply with Expert Witness Disclosures Applies at the Summary Judgment Stage

    Wine without Cheese? (Why a construction contract needs an order of precedence clause)(Law Note)

    Edgewater Plans to Sue Over Pollution During Veterans Field Rehab

    California Case Adds Difficulties for Contractors & Material Suppliers

    Investigation of Orange County Landslide

    Warren Renews Criticism of Private Equity’s Role in Housing

    No Entitlement to Reimbursement of Pre-Tender Fees

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at Faster Pace in January

    N.J. Governor Fires Staff at Authority Roiled by Patronage Hires

    Failure to Allege Property Damage Within Policy Period Defeats Insured's Claim

    Record Keeping—the Devil’s in the Details

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Insurer Must Produce Documents After Failing To Show They Are Confidential

    ACEC Statement on Negotiated Bipartisan Debt Limit Compromise

    Contractors Set to Implement Air Quality Upgrades for Healthier Buildings

    Construction Firm Settles Suit Over 2012 Calif. Wildfire

    CRH to Buy Building-Products Firm Laurence for $1.3 Billion

    Quick Note: Third-Party Can Bring Common Law Bad Faith Claim

    Arizona Supreme Court Holds a Credit Bid at a Trustee’s Sale Should Not be Credited to a Title Insurer Under a Standard Lender’s Title Policy To the Extent the Bid Exceeds the Collateral’s Fair Market Value

    Construction Defect Coverage Barred Under Business Risk Exclusion in Colorado

    U.S. Homeowners Are Lingering Longer, and the Wait Is Paying Off

    Couple Claims Contractor’s Work Is Defective and Incomplete

    Australia Warns of Multi-Billion Dollar Climate Disaster Costs

    Colorado House Bill 1279 Stalls over 120-day Unit Owner Election Period
    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. Leveraging 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

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

    April 11, 2018 —
    When it comes to Miller Act payment bond claims, repairing one’s own work does NOT extend the one year statute of limitations to file suit on a Miler Act payment bond. Belonger Corp., Inc. v. BW Contracting Services, Inc., 2018 WL 704379, *3 (E.D. Wisconsin 2018) (“The courts that have considered this question tend to agree that, once a subcontractor completes its work under the subcontract, repairs or corrections to that work do not fall within the meaning of ‘labor’ or ‘materials’ and, as such, do not extend the Miller Act’s one-year statute of limitations.”). Well, what if the subcontractor was repairing its own work due to an issue caused by another subcontractor? 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

    Thank You Once Again for the Legal Elite Election for 2022

    December 18, 2022 —
    Thank you once again to those in the Virginia legal community who elected me to the Virginia Business Legal Elite in the Construction Law category for the 16th consecutive year. The 16 consecutive years of election to the Legal Elite in the Construction Category span my time as a solo construction attorney. The fact that you all have continued to elect “100%” of the lawyers at The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC for the last 12 years is most gratifying and only confirms that my decision to “go solo” over 12 years ago was a good one. To be included in this list of top construction attorneys is both humbling and gratifying. For the complete list of the Virginia construction lawyers that were elected along with me, see the 2022 Virginia Business Legal Elite in Construction Law. So without further ado, thank you to all of you who voted for me. I truly appreciate your continued confidence and support of my construction law practice. Your yearly votes always prod me to learn and continually improve to meet your expectations and keep my practice at this high level. I also couldn’t do this without the great support from friends and family (not to mention clients), so my gratitude goes out to these great folks. 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

    No Coverage for Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

    November 28, 2022 —
    Finding faulty workmanship that did not cause property damage beyond the subcontractor's work, the court found there was no coverage under the CGL policy. Middlesex Ins. Co. v. Dixie Mech., Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175190 (N. D. Ga. Sept. 27, 2022).  The case involved a construction project on Elba Island, Georgia. IHI E&C International Corporation (IHI) filed suit against Robinson Mechanical Contractors ("Robinson") for faulty construction work, including a pipe rack and process module installation. The pipe racks allegedly contained defective welds. Robinson filed a third-party complaint against Patriot Modular, Inc. (Patriot), Robinson's subcontractor, for faulty work for IHI. Finally, Patriot filed a fourth-party complaint against Dixie Mechanical, Inc. (Dixie), alleging it subcontracted with Dixie to perform fabrication, welding, testing, and inspection of pipes under Patriot's subcontract with Robinson. Patriot contended that to the extent it was found liable to Robinson for any defective work, delays or breaches of contract for Dixie's work, Patriot was entitled to recover such amounts from Dixie. In this case, Dixie's insurer, Middlesex Insurance Company, sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or to indemnify Dixie. Middlesex contended that the claims of faulty workmanship in the underlying complaints constituted neither an "occurrence" nor "property damage." 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

    Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

    June 11, 2014 —
    In Lexology, Amy Kuo Alexander of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP analyzed recent decisions involving California’s Right to Repair Act, SB 800. According to Alexander, “SB 800, applies to all new residential construction sold after January 1, 2003” and “[i]t establishes a process to resolve certain construction defect claims prior to the filing of any lawsuit by a homeowner of new residential construction.” Alexander’s three main discussion points include “SB 800 is Not the Exclusive Remedy,” “Notice Requirements to Builder Under SB 800,” and “Parties Can Opt Out of SB 800 to Adopt Their Own Prelitigation Procedure So Long as the Terms Are Not Unconscionable.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Musk Backs Off Plan for Tunnel in Tony Los Angelenos' Backyard

    December 19, 2018 —
    Elon Musk’s futuristic tunneling company, Boring Co., is no longer embroiled in a lawsuit with the residents of West Los Angeles. A May lawsuit aimed at stopping the Boring Co.’s proposed tunnel under Sepulveda Boulevard has been settled, according to a notice filed at the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Neighbors in the Brentwood and Sunset Boulevard areas, near the proposed tunnel, had sued the City of Los Angeles over the Boring Co.’s plans to build a test tunnel without going through an environmental review process, as recommended in April by the city’s public works committee. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah McBride & Edvard Pettersson, Bloomberg

    Damages to Property That is Not the Insured's Work Product Are Covered

    October 27, 2016 —
    Reversing the district court, the Eighth Circuit predicted that under Iowa law, damage to property other than the insured's work product was covered. Decker Plastics Inc. v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15235 (8th Cir. Aug. 19, 2016). A 1's, Inc. packaged and sold landscaping materials. Decker Plastics Corporation sold plastic bags to A 1's. The plastic bags were filled with sand and rock, and stored outdoors for sale to customers. Because Decker failed to manufacture the bags with an ultraviolet inhibitor, the bags deteriorated in the sunlight. This caused small shreds of plastic to commingle with A 1's landscaping materials. The plastic was a contaminant that could not be inexpensively separated form A 1's products. A 1's had to clean spilled materials from customer sites, purchase replacement bags from another supplier, and pay to clean up its own property. 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

    Coverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not Covered

    June 10, 2015 —
    The employee exclusions in the employer's CGL and Umbrella policies barred coverage. Piatt v. Indiana Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 Mo. LEXIS 32 (Mo. April 28, 2015). Linda Nunley was killed while working for Missouri Hardwood Charcoal, Inc. The kiln's large steel door had been removed and was leaning upright against another kiln when it blew over and crushed Ms. Nunley. Her family filed a wrongful death suit against Junior Flowers, the company's sole owner, director, and executive officer. The complaint alleged that Flowers was negligent in ordering employees to lean the kiln doors upright, even though he knew it was unsafe. The complaint further alleged that Flowers breached a personal duty of care owed to Ms. Nunley and that his actions were "something more" that a breach of the company's duty to provide a safe workplace. Flowers requested a defense under CGL and Umbrella policies issued by Lumbermen's. The policies insured Missouri Hardwood and its executive officers, but excluded liability for a work-related injury to an "employee of the insured." The policies also had a "separation of insureds" provision, stating that the insurance applied "separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought." Lumbermen's denied coverage. 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

    “Unwinnable”: Newark Trial Team Obtains Unanimous “No Cause” Verdict in Challenging Matter on Behalf of NYC Mutual Housing Association

    May 15, 2023 —
    Newark, N.J. (May 8, 2023) – Newark Partner Afsha Noran and New Jersey Managing Partner Colin P. Hackett recently obtained a “no cause” verdict on behalf of multi-unit apartment owners and managers, notwithstanding that the trial judge initially deemed the matter an “unwinnable case” for the defense. In this matter, Lewis Brisbois represented a large New York City mutual housing association that owned and managed a single multi-unit apartment building in Paterson, New Jersey. The plaintiffs – a mother and her two children – alleged that the housing association failed to maintain the property, which led to defective conditions and mold throughout their apartment. They further contended that the mold caused multiple pulmonary, nasal, and skin injuries. Despite the shortage of trial judges in New Jersey, this case proceeded to trial, with the plaintiffs’ significant six-figure demand in place. Over the course of the four-day trial, the plaintiffs presented five witnesses: the plaintiff mother, the plaintiff 18-year-old child, the liability expert, and two medical experts. The client chose not to retain either liability or damages experts to counter those of the plaintiffs. As such, Lewis Brisbois’ trial team was left to defend the matter with an opening statement, a cross-examination of the plaintiffs and their experts, the testimony of the client’s property manager, and a closing argument. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois