BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation 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


    Condominium's Agent Owes No Duty to Injured Apartment Owner

    The Jersey Shore gets Beach Prisms Designed to Reduce Erosion

    Damage Caused Not by Superstorm Sandy, But by Faulty Workmanship, Not Covered

    Vincent Alexander Named to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “That’s Not How I Read It”

    BWB&O’s Los Angeles Partner Eileen Gaisford and Associate Kelsey Kohnen Win a Motion for Terminating Sanctions!

    Why Builders Should Reconsider Arbitration Clauses in Construction Contracts

    Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    Fifth Circuit: Primary Insurer Relieved of Duty to Defend Without Release of Liability of Insured

    New Safety Standards Issued by ASSE and ANSI

    Subcontractor Entitled to Defense for Defective Work Causing Property Damage Beyond Its Scope of Work

    How Retro-Commissioning Can Extend the Life of a Building—and the Planet

    Differing Site Conditions Produce Differing Challenges

    Know Whether Your Course of Business Operations Are Covered Or Excluded By Your Insurance

    Court Finds That $400 Million Paid Into Abatement Fund Qualifies as “Damages” Under the Insured’s Policies

    Scary Movie: Theatre Developer Axed By Court of Appeal In Prevailing Wage Determination Challenge

    Denial of Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens Does Not Automatically Create Basis for Certiorari Relief

    Determination That Title Insurer Did Not Act in Bad Faith Vacated and Remanded

    California Court Forces Insurer to Play Ball in COVID-19 Insurance Coverage Suit

    Jersey City, New Jersey, to Get 95-Story Condo Tower

    Haight Proudly Supports JDC's 11th Annual Bike-A-Thon Benefitting Pro Bono Legal Services

    William Lyon to Acquire RSI Communities

    Conflicting Exclusions Result in Duty to Defend

    Workers Hurt in Casino Floor Collapse

    The Future of Construction Work with Mark Ehrlich

    SIG Earnings Advance 21% as U.K. Construction Strengthens

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increased 5% in Year to June

    Res Judicata Bars Insured from Challenging Insurer's Use of Schedule to Deduct Depreciation from the Loss

    Engineer Probing Champlain Towers Debacle Eyes Possibility of Three Successive Collapses

    Travelers v. Larimer County and the Concept of Covered Cause of Loss

    Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    Construction Feb. Jobs Jump by 61,000, Jobless Rate Up from Jan.

    Hurricane Milton Barrels Toward Florida With 180 MPH Winds

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 6: Ensuring Availability of Insurance and State Regulations

    Nine Haight Attorneys Selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2021

    BIOHM Seeks to Turn Plastic Waste into Insulation Material with Mushrooms

    California Insurance Commissioner Lacks Authority to Regulate Formula for Estimating Replacement Cost Value

    Contractor Removed from Site for Lack of Insurance

    Insurer Sued for Altering Policies after Claim

    Prompt Payment More Likely on Residential Construction Jobs Than Commercial or Public Jobs

    Colorado Court of Appeals’ Ruling Highlights Dangers of Excessive Public Works Claims

    It Ain’t Over Till it’s Over. Why Project Completion in California Isn’t as Straightforward as You Think

    The Godfather of Solar Predicts Its Future

    First Suit to Enforce Business-Interruption Coverage Filed

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    A Court-Side Seat: Waters, Walls and Pipelines

    When an Insurer Proceeds as Subrogee, Defendants Cannot Assert Contribution Claims Against the Insured

    Are We Having Fun Yet? Construction In a Post-COVID World (Law Note)

    EEOC Suit Alleges Site Managers Bullied Black Workers on NY Project
    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

    Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment

    November 19, 2021 —
    On September 14, 2021, Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian secured summary judgment on behalf of a City which operated a park containing a natural bathing spring in Sarasota County, Florida. The underlying loss occurred when the Plaintiff went to the park, entered the spring without incident, swam for more than an hour, then exited the spring and was returning to the area where she had stored her belongings when she slipped and fell on mud and grass, sustaining an open angulated fracture of her right tibia and fibula. The Plaintiff was rushed to the hospital where she underwent open reduction, internal fixation surgery on her right leg which consisted of implantation of a metal rod into the medullary cavity of her tibia that was secured by two proximal and two distal interlocking screws. She was in the hospital for four days. Upon discharge, the Plaintiff was placed in a walking boot and confined to a wheelchair for several months. The Plaintiff incurred nearly $100,000 in medical expenses. The Plaintiff filed a premises liability action against the City claiming it failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. The Plaintiff also alleged that the City failed to warn her that the area where she had stored her belongings had become saturated and slippery proximately causing her fall and resulting injuries. After the close of discovery, Mr. Guldalian filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the City arguing the wet grass and mud upon which the Plaintiff fell and injured herself was a byproduct of patrons going in and out of the water and walking to and from the area where they stored their belongings, was open and obvious, and did not constitute a dangerous condition as a matter of law. Citing to case law from the Florida Supreme Court which held that it is common knowledge that walks adjacent to, leading to, or surrounding a bathing area generally have water constantly thrown upon them and are in a slippery condition, as well as deposition testimony from the Plaintiff confirming she had been swimming at the spring for the past eighteen plus years and was “very familiar” with the park, the spring, and the area where she normally stored her belongings, Mr. Guldalian argued that some injury-causing conditions, like wet grass and mud surrounding a swimming area, are simply so open and so obvious that they cannot be held, as a matter of law, to give rise to liability as dangerous conditions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bradley T. Guldalian, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Guldalian may be contacted at bguldalian@tlsslaw.com

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/17/23) – A Flop in Flipping, Plastic Microbes and Psychological Hard Hats

    May 29, 2023 —
    In our latest roundup, we look at a downturn in home-flipping and a continuing overabundance of commercial office space, plus psychological support for construction workers and surging demand for industrial space materials. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Construction Down in Twin Cities Area

    October 30, 2013 —
    Although the year has been better for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, with a 9% increase since last year, this September saw 25% less construction spending than last September. Non-residential construction dropped even further, losing 36%. Although September was a bad month, the year-to-date value of construction contracts is about $3.3 billion, exceeding last year’s $3.0 billion for the region. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces Jason Moberly Caruso As Its Newest Partner

    February 01, 2021 —
    Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that Newport Beach attorney Jason Moberly Caruso has been elected to partnership. "Jason has continually shown himself to be a gifted attorney, both in his ability to expand the firm's offerings in land use, environmental law, and the firm's growing appellate practice, as well as in his exceptional approach to client service," said the firm's Managing Partner, Paul Tetzloff. "His positive presence is felt wherever he goes, and we're honored to have him join the firm's partnership." Caruso focuses his practice on various aspects of "contaminated sites" environmental legal work, complex litigation, and appellate matters. He counsels and represents current and former facility owners and operators in state and federal proceedings, administrative actions, cost recovery cases, and non-litigation site remediation situations. The litigated matters frequently involve the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and its parallel California Hazardous Substances Account Act (HSSA). When clients must go to court, Caruso applies his significant experience in complex state and federal litigation over a broad range of substantive areas, including environmental, business, real estate, construction, and products liability. His experience extends from pre-litigation through trial and post-trial proceedings. Caruso's practice also includes a special emphasis on appellate matters. Caruso has briefed and argued multiple appeals in the state and federal courts, obtaining victories for clients in general appellate and extraordinary writ proceedings. Caruso has prosecuted and defended appeals involving the firm's existing cases and clients, but has also been engaged by outside clients after the conclusion of trial court proceedings. An active member of the community, Caruso serves as a mock trial attorney coach for University High School through the Constitutional Rights Foundation Orange County (CRF-OC) and as a member of CRF-OC's Board of Directors. He also serves as a member and secretary of the Orange County Bar Association's Professionalism & Ethics Committee, and is a member of the executive committee of the William P. Gray Legion Lex Inn of Court. Caruso is also committed to pro bono work, endeavoring always to be representing at least one pro bono client via Orange County's Public Law Center. Caruso earned his B.A., cum laude, from the University of Southern California, and his J.D., cum laude, from the University of California, Hastings College of Law. About Newmeyer Dillion For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 65 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's operations, growth, and profits. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Coverage for Additional Insured for Construction Defect Claim

    July 02, 2024 —
    The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurers, finding there was no coverage for the additional insured on a construction defect claim. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co. v. Walsh Construction. Co., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10285 (7th Cir. April 29, 2024). The City of Chicago hired Walsh Construction Company as general contractor for the Facade and Circulation Enhancement (FACE) project at O'Hare International Airport. The FACE project involved building and installing a new canopy for Terminals 1, 2 and 3. The project also called for the construction of a steel and glass curtain wall that would be integrated with the curtain wall at Terminals 2 and 3. Walsh contracted with Carlo Steel Corporation to manufacture the steel and curtain wall. Carlo, in turn, subcontracted with LB Steel, LLC to manufacture and install the steel elements of the wall, which included steel columns, hammer heads and box girders. The subcontract between Carlo and LB Steel included an indemnity provision that required LB Steel to indemnify Carlo and Walsh for any property damage resulting from LB Steel's negligent performance. 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

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

    January 05, 2017 —
    Washington Courts allow an insurer to determine its duty to defend an insured against a lawsuit based only on the face of the complaint and the limitations of the insurance policy. This is otherwise known as the “eight corners” rule (four corners of the complaint plus the four corners of the policy). In other words, the insurance company is not permitted to rely on facts extrinsic to the complaint in order to deny its duty to defend an insured. See Truck Ins. Exch. v. VanPort Homes, Inc., 147 Wn.2d 751, 763 (2002). The laws in Washington provide greater protection to the insured over the insurer when it comes to the insurer’s duty to defend. The duty to defend a claim is triggered if a claim could “conceivably” be covered under the policy. See Woo v. Fireman’s Insurance, 161 Wn.2d 43 (2007). If there is any ambiguity in a policy with regard to coverage, the ambiguity is interpreted in favor of the insured. As a result, contractors in Washington regularly tender claims or potential claims to their insurers even when damage has not occurred but will occur in the imminent future. Especially in the context of construction defect cases, a contractor will tender such a claim to its insurer to trigger the broad duty of the insurer to provide a defense. We also regularly recommend this to our contractor clients. For example, if a building owner serves a contractor with a claim that the construction and installation of a window system will imminently cause leaks and corrosion, we would recommend that the contractor tender the claim to its commercial general liability insurer. Washington courts have found a duty to defend when there are allegations in the complaint that covered damages will occur in the imminent future. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Masaki J. Yamada, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Yamada may be contacted at myamada@ac-lawyers.com

    Bright-Line Changes: Prompt Payment Act Trends

    September 16, 2024 —
    Untimely payment by the owner for contract work and additional work on construction projects can place an unfair financial burden on contractors and subcontractors. Most states have attempted to eliminate or mitigate this inequity in construction contracting through Prompt Payment Acts that govern payment deadlines and provide remedies for untimely payment. This article addresses the legislative trends aimed at minimizing the risk of non-payment, overdue payment, and withholding retainage in favor of downstream parties to a construction contract. Fortifying Contractor Protections with “Bright-Line” Language Over the last decade, states have been tightening prompt payment laws by replacing broad, general statutory language with bright-line rules. What is a bright-line rule? A specific or definite figure, a quantifiable marker—i.e., something owners, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers should be aware of. Practically speaking, the more bright-line a prompt payment statute is, the greater the likelihood it will affect a construction project in your state. A standard form construction contract, if not reviewed carefully, can create conflicts or confusion if it gives a party more leeway on payment deadlines than the applicable Prompt Payment Act. For example, consider an owner-issued Construction Change Directive (“CCD”) that requires a contractor to commence additional work immediately while a formal change order is negotiated. Consequently, a CCD can push financial burdens downstream, whether inadvertently or not, and may conflict with statutory payment deadlines. Nevertheless, an owner can be justified in its utilization of a CCD to maintain the project schedule. How should the parties competing interests be resolved? Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C.

    Colorado House Bill 19-1170: Undefined Levels of Mold or Dampness Can Make a Leased Residential Premises Uninhabitable

    April 03, 2019 —
    One of the 407 bills the Colorado legislature is considering as of the date of this blog post is House Bill 19-1170, the Residential Tenants Health and Safety Act, which can be found at https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb19-1170 and clicking on the link for the recent bill text. The bill passed the House on February 26 and is in the Senate for consideration. The bill currently adds two substantive conditions to those conditions that make a residential premises uninhabitable. One is the lack of functioning appliances that conformed to applicable law when installed and that are maintained in good working order. The second is “mold that is associated with dampness, or there is any other condition causing the premises to be damp, which condition, if not remedied, would materially interfere with the health or safety of the tenant…,” referred to here as “the mold or dampness provision.” The bill also amends various procedural provisions of Colorado law to make enforcement by a tenant easier and broadens tenant remedies. The bill grants jurisdiction to county and small claims courts to grant injunctions for breach. This article focuses on the mold or dampness provision. The mold or dampness provision is vague and will likely lead to abuse. First, there is mold everywhere. While expert witnesses routinely testify about the level of exposure that is unacceptable, no generally accepted medical standards for an unacceptable level of mold exposure currently exist, and each person reacts to mold differently. There is no requirement in the bill that mold exposure exceed levels that are generally considered harmful by experts in the field, or even in excess of naturally occurring background levels. Second, some sources estimate that there are over 100,000 different species of mold. No harmful effects have been shown for many species of mold, while other species of mold are considered harmful. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Steve Heisdorffer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. Heisdorffer may be contacted at heisdorffer@hhmrlaw.com