BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design 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


    Contractor Convicted of Additional Fraud

    Coverage Denied for Insured's Defective Product

    Know When Your Claim “Accrues” or Risk Losing It

    Defend Trade Secret Act of 2016–-Federalizing Trade Secret Law

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

    S&P Suspended and Fined $80 Million in SEC, State Mortgage Bond Cases

    Deadlines. . . They’re Important. Project Owner Risks Losing Claim By Failing to Timely Identify “Doe” Defendant

    No Conflict in Successive Representation of a Closely-Held Company and Its Insiders Where Insiders Already Possess Company’s Confidential Information

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    U.S. Stocks Fall as Small Shares Tumble Amid Home Sales

    Water Seepage, Ensuing Mold Damage Covered by Homeowner's Policy

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    Will Future Megacities Be a Marvel or a Mess? Look at New Delhi

    New Jersey Judge Declared Arbitrator had no Duty to Disclose Past Contact with Lawyer

    Alabama Federal Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Construction Defect Declaratory Judgment Action Due to Expanded Duty to Defend Standard

    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

    MGM Seeks to Demolish Harmon Towers

    Miorelli Doctrine’s Sovereign Immunity in Public Construction Contracts — Not the Be-All and End-All

    'Regluing' Oregon State's Showcase for Mass Timber

    California’s Right To Repair Act Is The Sole Remedy For Damages For Construction Defects In New Residential Construction

    What If an Irma-Like Hurricane Hit the New York City Metro Area?

    Cities' Answer to Sprawl? Go Wild.

    Blackstone to Buy Chicago’s Willis Tower for $1.3 Billion

    Illinois Court Assesses Factual Nature of Term “Reside” in Determining Duty to Defend

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution

    Developer's Novel Virus-killing Air Filter Ups Standard for Indoor Air Quality

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Brings Professional Development Series to Their San Antonio Office

    Combating Climate Change by Reducing Embodied Energy in the Built Environment

    The Contract Disputes Act: What Every Federal Government Contractor Should Know

    A New Perspective on Mapping Construction Sites with the Crane Camera System

    California Supreme Court Hands Victory to Private Property Owners Over Public Use

    Primer Debuts on Life-Cycle Assessments of Embodied Carbon in Buildings

    How Are You Dealing with Material Delays / Supply Chain Impacts?

    Three Kahana Feld Attorneys Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® 2025

    Federal Court in New York Court Dismisses Civil Authority Claim for COVID-19 Coverage

    No Duty to Defend Suit That Is Threatened Under Strict Liability Statute

    Fixing That Mistake

    ASHRAE Approves Groundbreaking Standard to Reduce the Risk of Disease Transmission in Indoor Spaces

    Indemnity Payment to Insured Satisfies SIR

    Recommendations and Drafting Considerations for Construction Contingency Clauses Part III

    How You Plead Allegations to Trigger Liability Insurer’s Duties Is Critical

    Palo Alto Considers Fines for Stalled Construction Projects

    Congratulations to all of our 2023 Attorneys Named as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Malerie Anderson Named to D Magazine’s 2023 Best Lawyers Under 40

    Lake Charles Tower’s Window Damage Perplexes Engineers

    New California Standards Go into Effect July 1st

    New Jersey Firm’s Fee Action Tossed for not Filing Substitution of Counsel

    US Appeals Court Halts OSHA Vaccine Mandate, Unclear How Long

    Waive It Goodbye: Despite Evidence to the Contrary, Delaware Upholds an AIA Waiver of Subrogation Clause

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona
    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

    Wildfire Is Efficient Proximate Cause of Moisture Reaching Expansive Soils Under Residence

    November 05, 2014 —
    The court considered whether a wildfire (covered risk) or moisture in the soils (excluded risk) was the cause of damage to the insureds' home. Encompass Ins. Co. v. Berger, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142870 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2014). In May 2009, the Jesusita Fire caused damage to the insureds' home and surrounding area. The west wall of the house was burned, causing damage to a bedroom. A shed, hot tub, wooden decks and some vegetation, including eucalyptus trees, were damaged. The insureds submitted a claim to Encompass. Eventually, Encompass spent $400,000 repairing the 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

    Claims against Broker for Insufficient Coverage Fail

    May 10, 2021 —
    After a coverage dispute for damage caused by Hurricane Harvey was settled, the insured's claims against its insurance broker for providing insufficient coverage were dismissed. Hitchcock Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57452 (S.D. Texas Feb. 26, 2021). The School District suffered $3.5 million in property damage after Hurricane Harvey struck. Its insurers denied coverage and the School District sued. During the litigation, the School District learned that the policies contained an arbitration clause and a New York choice of law provision. Rather than pursue its claims in arbitration, the School District settled with its insurers and sued its broker for failing to obtain insurance without arbitration or choice of law provisions. The broker moved to dismiss The School District claimed that it had to settle with the insurers for less than what it would have settled had the arbitration and choice of law provisions not been in its policies. The court found this novel theory to be based upon pure speculation 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

    Claim for Punitive Damages Based on Insurers' Alleged Bad Faith Business Practices Fails

    September 05, 2022 —
    The court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss the bad faith claim based upon allegations of a general business practice of acting recklessly toward an insured's rights under the policy. Sandpiper Isle Condo. Ass'n v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114279 (M.D. Fla. June 28, 2022). Sandpiper suffered property damage from Hurricane Irma. Empire accepted the claim but there was disagreement on the value of the damage. An appraisal issued an award in favor of Sandpiper but Empire failed to pay the benefits for two years. 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

    Insurer Doomed in Delaware by the Sutton Rule

    September 12, 2023 —
    In Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Thangavel, No. 379, 2022, 2023 Del. LEXIS 227, the Supreme Court of Delaware (Supreme Court) considered whether the Sutton Rule prevented the plaintiff from pursuing subrogation against the defendants. As applied in Delaware, the Sutton Rule explains that landlords and tenants are co-insureds under the landlord’s fire insurance policy unless a tenant’s lease clearly expresses an intent to the contrary. If the Sutton Rule applies, the landlord’s insurer cannot pursue the tenant for the landlord’s damages by way of subrogation. Here, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision that the Sutton Rule applied because the lease did not clearly express an intent to hold the tenants liable for the landlord’s damages. In Thangavel, the plaintiff, Donegal Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer), provided property insurance to Seaford Apartment Ventures, LLC (Landlord) for a residential property in Delaware. Sathiyaselvam Thangavel and Sasikala Muthusamy (Tenants) leased an apartment (the Premises) from Landlord and signed a lease. Insurer alleged that Tenants hit a sprinkler head while flying a drone inside the Premises which caused water to spray from the damaged sprinkler head, resulting in property damage to the Premises. Landlord filed an insurance claim with Insurer, who paid Landlord $77,704.06 to repair the damage. Insurer then sought to recover the repair costs from Tenants via subrogation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Katherine Dempsey, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Dempsey may be contacted at dempseyk@whiteandwilliams.com

    A New Perspective on Mapping Construction Sites with the Crane Camera System

    November 10, 2016 —
    In this interview, Julian Norton, Business Development Manager of Pix4D, talks about the company’s innovative mapping system for construction sites. Pix4D has just launched an early adopter program and is looking for test users. Can you say a few words about your company’s background and mission? Pix4D was founded in 2011 as a spinoff of EPFL, a leading Swiss tech university. The years of leading scientific research in photogrammetry and computer vision done by our founders was applied to drones long before drone mapping became a “thing.” Fast forward through more years of hard work to now, and you’ll see Pix4D specialized in professional drone mapping software to produce orthomosaics, 3D models, digital surface models, point clouds and more, all from images. Our solutions are purposed towards four main industries: surveying, agriculture, real estate and construction. We want our professional clients to benefit from our unique hybrid approach, which combines mobile data capture with cloud and desktop hardware, to conduct mapping in a way that fits them best. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aarni@aepartners.fi

    The Colorado Supreme Court affirms Woodbridge II’s “Adverse Use” Distinction

    December 20, 2021 —
    Last year, I posted regarding the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision in Woodbridge II, which concluded that the “adverse use” element for prescriptive easement claims only requires the claimant to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2. Thus, Woodbridge II concluded, the claimants acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context. Id. That decision was up for review by the Colorado Supreme Court at the time of my prior post. It has now been affirmed, thereby settling an arguable appellate decision split created by Woodbridge II. See Lo Viento Blanco, LLC v. Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 2021 CO 56 (“Woodbridge”). “Like the division below, and for much the same reasons,” the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed in Woodbridge “that under Colorado law, a claimant’s acknowledgement or recognition of the owner’s title during the claimant’s asserted prescriptive period does not interrupt the prescriptive use or undermine the claimant’s adverse use.” Woodbridge, ¶ 2. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Gabriel’s opinion agreed with the Court of Appeals’ reasoning “that although Woodbridge recognized that it did not hold title, no evidence indicated that it had acted in subordination to the owner’s title.” Id. ¶ at 13. The Court further agreed with Woodbridge II’srejection of Lo Viento’s “permissive use” argument because “the permission offered … was conditional and Woodbridge never agreed to any of the conditions set forth therein.” Id. On that basis, Woodbridge confirmed that “a claimant seeking to establish a prescriptive easement need not show that it asserted exclusive ownership of the property during the prescriptive period,” but only “that its use was without permission or otherwise unauthorized and that it interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Id. at ¶ 23. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

    Does Your U.S. Company Pull Data From European Citizens? Fall In Line With GDPR by May 2018 or Suffer Substantial Fines

    November 15, 2017 —
    The European Union (“EU”) has enacted a strict, comprehensive framework of security regulations aimed to protect its citizens. These regulations, known as the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), provide a blueprint for a combination of required legal, technological and work habits within an organization. Although this is an EU regulation, the new laws will apply to any organization within or outside the EU that collects or processes data of EU citizens. Therefore, U.S. companies must analyze their data and processes to determine whether compliance with the GDPR is necessary. A quickly-approaching deadline of May 25, 2018 must be met to avoid massive fines. What is the GDPR? In order to address the creation of social networking sites, cloud computing, and location-based services, the EU set in motion a process to implement a vigorous set of rules to ensure the right to personal data protection for all European citizens. In April 2016 the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission adopted a new GDPR, which will take affect on May 25, 2018. This GDPR will streamline cooperation between the data protection authorities on personal data issues allowing companies to deal with one authority - not each of the 28 EU member states. This will allow for quicker decisions by the data protection authorities and greatly reduce the red tape in both compliance and enforcement under the GDPR. This will also create a level playing field by forcing non-EU companies to comply with the same strict regulations - regardless of whether or not the company is established in the EU. Territorial scope of the GDPR The GDPR applies directly to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the EU - regardless of whether the processing takes place in the EU. Additionally, there are specific provisions under the GDPR that apply to non-EU companies if their processing activities relate to (a) the offering of goods or services (irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required) or (b) monitoring the behavior of individuals within the EU. Therefore, all companies must determine whether they process or monitor information of EU citizens. If a company falls within one of these categories, compliance with the GDPR is mandatory. What happens if a company fails to comply with the GDPR? Failure to comply with the GDPR could subject a company to crushing administrative fines. The supervisory authority has the power to impose administrative fines under the GDPR. The following violations and breaches would subject a company to administrative fines:
    • Not adhering to the core principles of processing personal data,
    • Breach of notification to EU citizens by controllers and processors,
    • Wrongful transfer of personal data to non-EU countries,
    • Breach of obligations regarding certification,
    • Ignoring the mandates asserted by the supervisory authority,
    • Breach by those responsible for impact assessment, and
    • Wrongful processing of employee data.
    The extent of the violation and type of personal data involved will dictate the severity of the administrative fines imposed on a company. For example, under the GDPR, a company could be subject to administrative fines up to 20,000,000 EUR, or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual revenue of the preceding financial year. Obviously, these fines would be financially crippling to any company. Preparing for May 25, 2018 The May 25, 2018 deadline is fast approaching and preparing for full compliance with the GDPR is paramount. Simple steps should be taken to ensure compliance including to: (1) Review and analyze data repositories for sensitive data, (2) Perform an analysis/accounting of procedure for data collection, and (3) Create an oversite committee dedicated to data activities and compliance. Most importantly, however, is to determine whether compliance with the GDPR is necessary, and strictly follow the requirements of the GDPR to protect from potentially massive fines. Jeffrey M. Dennis currently serves as Newmeyer & Dillion’s Managing Partner and as a business leader, advises his clients on cybersecurity related issues, introducing contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. You can reach Jeff at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com. Ivo Daniele is a seasoned associate in Newmeyer & Dillion’s Walnut Creek office. His practice includes representing private and public companies with both their transactional and litigation needs. You can reach Ivo at ivo.daniele@ndlf.com. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. 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 have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Does Your U.S. Company Pull Data From European Citizens? Fall In Line With GDPR by May 2018 or Suffer Substantial Fines

    Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Little Changed in January

    January 28, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- Confidence among U.S. homebuilders hovered in January close to a nine-year high, indicating the residential real estate market is poised to expand this year. While the National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo builder sentiment gauge fell to 57 this month from 58 in December, readings greater than 50 mean more respondents report good market conditions, according to figures issued from the Washington-based group Tuesday. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey called for 58. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News