BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnesses
    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


    Contractor Gets Benched After Failing to Pay Jury Fees

    Flexible Seattle Off-Ramp Would Retain Shape in Quake

    Infrared Photography Illuminates Construction Defects and Patent Trolling

    Ohio Rejects the Majority Trend and Finds No Liability Coverage for a Subcontractor’s Faulty Work

    How SmartThings Wants to Automate Your Home

    Insurer's Withheld Discovery Must be Produced in Bad Faith Case

    Insurance Companies Score Win at Supreme Court

    Traub Lieberman Partner Stephen Straus Wins Spoliation Motion in Favor of Defendant

    Downtown Sacramento Building Riddled with Defects

    Construction Lien Does Not Include Late Fees Separate From Interest

    Beyond the COI: The Importance of an Owner's or Facilities Manager's Downstream Insurance Review Program

    Corporate Transparency Act’s Impact on Real Estate: Reporting Companies, Exemptions and Beneficial Ownership Reporting (webinar)

    Risky Business: Contractual Protections in the 'New Normal'

    Future Army Corps Rulings on Streams and Wetlands: Changes and Delays Ahead

    Insurer Not Bound by Decision in Underlying Case Where No Collateral Estoppel

    Waiver of Subrogation and Lack of Contractual Privity Bars Commercial Tenants’ Claims

    Even Where Fraud and Contract Mix, Be Careful With Timing

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

    In Phoenix, Crews Thread Needle With $730M Broadway Curve Revamp

    New York Appellate Division: Second Department Contradicts First Department, Denying Insurer's Recoupment of Defense Costs for Uncovered Claims

    Florida Passes Tort Reform Bill

    A Primer on Insurance for Construction Projects

    Congratulations to Jonathan Kaplan on his Promotion to Partner!

    Digital Twins – Interview with Cristina Savian

    Home Numbers Remain Small While Homes Get Bigger

    Alleged Serious Defects at Hanford Nuclear Waste Treatment Plant

    London's Walkie Talkie Tower Voted Britain's Worst New Building

    Subcontractor Exception to "Your Work" Exclusion Does Not Apply to Coverage Under Subcontractor's Policy

    New Law Impacting Florida’s Statute of Repose

    Providing Your Insurer Prompt Notice

    CSLB Begins Processing Applications for New B-2 License

    Ortega Outbids Pros to Build $10 Billion Property Empire

    9 Basic Strategies for Pursuing Coverage for Construction Accident Claims

    A Few Things You Might Consider Doing Instead of Binging on Netflix

    Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy

    #6 CDJ Topic: Construction Defect Legislative Developments

    Patagonia Will Start Paying for Homeowners' Solar Panels

    First Circuit Finds No Coverage For Subcontracted Faulty Work

    Top 10 Take-Aways from the 2024 Annual Forum Meeting in New Orleans

    Denver Condo Development Increasing, with Caution

    Feds, County Seek Delay in Houston $7B Road Widening Over Community Impact

    7 Areas where Technology is Shifting the Construction Business

    New EPA Regulation for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

    Two Lawyers From Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Group, Andrea DeField and Latosha Ellis, Selected for American Bar Association’s 2022 “On The Rise” Award

    Study Finds Mansion Tax Reduced Sales in New York and New Jersey

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2020 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    ASCE Statement on Biden Administration Permitting Action Plan

    Job Growth Seen as Good News for North Carolina Housing Market

    Wildfires Threaten to Make Home Insurance Unaffordable

    Update: Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Application of Set-Off When Determining Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    February 22, 2021 —
    The recent opinion from the Second District Court of Appeal in Hayward Baker, Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2020 WL 7767859 (2nd DCA 2020) demonstrates that the significant issues test for determining the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees applies to disputes involving payment bonds under Florida’s Lien Law (Florida Statutes Chapter 713). The significant issues test is more or less a subjective test where the party that is deemed to have prevailed on the significant issues in the case is the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees in the case. A trial court has discretion to determine the prevailing party which will not be disturbed absent an appellate court finding the trial court abused that discretion. This significant issues test is an important consideration so that parties understand just because money ends up going their way does not necessarily mean they prevailed on the significant issues in the case. It could mean that. But it may not based on the claims and moneys involved in the dispute. 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

    Drones, Googleplexes and Hyperloops

    March 05, 2015 —
    I don’t know if it’s just me, or if there has been a lot of news lately about technology and construction:
    Although flying in the face of some bad press recently, the use of drones in construction. And we’re talking about more than just cameras with propellers.
    Battle of the (tech) Titans, as Google battles it out with the likes of LinkedIn and Microsoft for development rights in Mountain View, California for its futuristic new Googleplex. And we’re talking about more than just cameras with propellers.. And Google is only the most recent tech titan with development plans. Facebook’s Frank Gehry-designed campus expansion is in the works and Apple’s “spaceship” campus has already broken ground. We’ve come a long way since the HP garage in Palo Alto, baby!
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Balancing Risk and Reward: The Complexities of Stadium Construction Projects

    April 15, 2024 —
    From grand designs to opening day, stadium construction projects present a captivating blend of high-profile opportunities and significant challenges and risks. Navigating this complex landscape is not easy, but when managed properly, the potential rewards, both in terms of reputation and finances, can make it a gamble worth taking. While each stadium project is different, some of the more common risks include:
    1. Securing adequate labor, materials and equipment based on the size of the project;
    2. Logistical concerns regarding the concurrent performance of multiple trade scopes on a single site;
    3. Protection of work in place from weather due to the large footprint of the stadium project;
    4. Cash flow issues caused by protracted change order processing, conflicting and/or onerous payment requirements from project financing entities, and reimbursement of considerable monthly general condition costs; and
    5. Meeting the schedule requirements for the project.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gregory A. Eichorn, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Eichorn may be contacted at geichorn@pecklaw.com

    Illinois Legislature Enables Pre-Judgment Interest in Personal Injury Cases

    February 01, 2021 —
    On January 13, 2021, the Illinois General Assembly passed HB 3360, which will enable pre-judgment interest of 9% in personal injury cases. The legislation was sponsored by Madison County, Illinois-area representative Jay Hoffman (D-Belleville) and Illinois state senator Dan Harmon (D-Oak Park). Under current Illinois law, plaintiffs are not entitled to pre-judgment interest in personal injury cases because the nature and extent of a plaintiff’s damages cannot be calculated in advance and liability is uncertain (compared, for example, to a breach of contract claim). If signed by the governor, personal injury actions in Illinois will be subject to 9% per annum pre-judgment interest accruing “on the date the defendant has notice of the injury from the incident itself or a written notice." Notably, the bill will also impact pending litigation as interest begins to accrue on the effective date of the legislation for cases already filed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Zimmerman may be contacted at Justin.Zimmerman@lewisbrisbois.com

    Navigating the Construction Burrito: OCIP Policies in California’s Construction Defect Cases

    November 16, 2023 —
    In the early 2000’s, Owner-Controlled Insurance Programs (OCIP) or WRAPS, were traditionally used in large commercial projects of over $50 million in construction costs. As construction defect lawsuits became more prevalent, subcontractors found themselves unable to meet the insurance requirements of their contracts with developers and general contractors because they could not find insurance companies that were willing to insure the risk. This presented a problem for developers and general contractors and left them with no option but to look into new insurance products that would insure them and all subcontractors who worked on the project. OCIPs became in some instances the only insurance option for developers, general contractors, and subcontractors to build single-family or multi-family projects in California and other western states. OCIPS or WRAPS, often likened to the layers of a savory burrito, offer both enticing benefits and potential pitfalls. Just as a burrito’s ingredients can harmonize or clash, OCIP policies can shape the outcome of legal battles, impacting contractors, developers, and insurers alike. Pros – Savoring the OCIP Burrito: 1. Wrapped Protection: Much like a well-folded burrito envelops its contents, OCIP policies offer comprehensive coverage for construction projects. Developers, general contractors, and subcontractors find comfort in knowing that their liability risks are bundled into a single policy, ensuring all enrolled parties have coverage in the event of a claim. Reprinted courtesy of Alexa Stephenson, Kahana Feld and Ivette Kincaid, Kahana Feld Ms. Stephenson may be contacted at astephenson@kahanafeld.com Ms. Kincaid may be contacted at ikincaid@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Economic Loss Rule Bars Claims Against Manufacturer

    November 02, 2020 —
    The economic loss rule lives to bar a claim against a product manufacturer in a real estate transaction. In a products liability action, there needs to be personal injury or property damage, other than to the property itself, in order to recover economic damages. Otherwise, the economic loss rule will bar the recovery of such economic losses when the economic losses deal to the product itself. This is important to keep in mind in any product liability action against a manufacturer. In a recent case, 2711 Hollywood Beach Condominium Assoc’n, Inc., v. TRG Holiday, Ltd., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2179a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), a condominium association purchased the condominium from the developer. Subsequently, it noticed leaks with the fire suppression system in the condominium and sued multiple parties for damages for repairs due to the leaks and the replacement of the fire suppression system. One of the parties sued in negligence and strict liability was a manufacturer of pipe fittings used in the fire suppression system. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment based on the economic loss rule and relying on the 1993 Florida Supreme Court opinion in Casa Clara Condominium Assoc’n v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 620 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 1993), holding “the economic loss rule limited a defendant’s tort liability for allegedly defective products to injuries caused to persons or damage caused to property other than the defective product itself.” 2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra. The trial court agreed with the manufacturer and granted summary judgment. On appeal, the Third District affirmed based on the economic loss rule:
    The Association bargained for, purchased and received a building; [the manufactuer’s] fittings were only a component of the FSS [fire suppression system], incorporated into the building. Applying the rule set forth in Casa Clara, the Association purchased a completed building from the developer. [The manufactuer’s] fittings were “an integral part of the finished product and, thus, did not injure ‘other’ property.” Injury to the building itself is not injury to “other” property because the product purchased by the Association was the building. See Casa Clara, 620 So. 2d at 1247. The economic loss rule therefore bars the Association’s recovery as to [the manufacturer] to the extent that it sought damages to replace the FSS [fire suppression system] and repair damage to the building.
    2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra (internal citations 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

    Insurer Prohibited from Bringing Separate Contribution Action in Subrogation to Rights of Suspended Insured

    January 15, 2019 —
    In Travelers Property Casualty Co. of Amer. v. Engel Insulation, Inc. (No. C085753, filed 11/30/18), a California appeals court held that an insurer may not file its own action to assert claims solely as a subrogee of a suspended corporation, where the corporation could not otherwise assert the claims on its own behalf. In Engel, a homeowners association filed a construction defect action against the developer, Westlake. Travelers defended Westlake as an additional insured on the policy of a subcontractor. After the case settled, Travelers brought a subrogation action against another subcontractor for contribution to the defense costs. However, Westlake had its corporate status suspended for failure to pay taxes, and the subcontractor moved for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Revamp to Nationwide Permits Impacting Oil and Gas Pipeline, Utility and Telecom Line Work

    March 29, 2021 —
    To avoid delay costs and penalties, contractors involved in pipeline and utilities construction maintenance, repair and removal need to understand how the 43 year old Nationwide Permit (NWP) regime has changed specific to the NWP 12 and what is now required for compliance. This change is important for contractors who construct, maintain, or repair pipelines that cross or impact waters of the United States, including wetlands. NWPs are a useful tool to streamline construction of a pipeline project, but it is important for contractors to know when certain terms and conditions still apply to the particular NWP and those that have been eliminated. On January 13, 2021, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) published a final rule that reissued and modified twelve existing NWPs and issued four new NWPs that will take effect on March 15, 2021.1 The remaining 40 NWPs that were not reissued or modified under this rule will continue under the general conditions and definitions of the January 6, 2017 final rule. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alex P. Prochaska, Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Prochaska may be contacted at aprochaska@joneswalker.com