BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management 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


    Deference Given To Procuring Public Agency Regarding Material Deviation

    Eighth Circuit Affirms Judgment for Bad Faith after Insured's Home Destroyed by Fire

    EEOC Issues Anti-Harassment Guidance To Construction-Industry Employers

    Connecticut Supreme Court Further Refines Meaning of "Collapse"

    COVID-19 Response: Key Legal Considerations for Event Cancellations

    How Will Today’s Pandemic Impact Tomorrow’s Construction Contracts?

    How Small Mistakes Can Have Serious Consequences Under California's Contractor Licensing Laws.

    Federal Contractors Should Request Debriefings As A Matter Of Course

    Insurer Could Not Rely on Extrinsic Evidence to Circumvent Its Duty to Defend

    The Leaning Tower of San Francisco

    No Rest for the Weary: Project Completion Is the Beginning of Litigation

    ALERT: COVID-19 / Coronavirus-Related Ransomware and Phishing Attacks

    Top Five Legal Mistakes in Construction

    The Rise of Modular Construction – Impacts for Consideration

    Steps to Curb Construction Defect Actions for Homebuilders

    How to Lose Your Contractor’s License in 90 Days (or Less): California and Louisiana

    Personal Injury Claims – The Basics

    Coverage Found For Cleanup of Superfund Site Despite Pollution Exclusion

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers®

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Trigger and Allocation

    S&P 500 Little Changed on Home Sales Amid Quarterly Rally

    Canada Cooler Housing Market Boosts Poloz’s Soft Landing

    Construction Contracts Need Amending Post COVID-19 Shutdowns

    Ireland Said to Plan Home Loans Limits to Prevent Bubble

    Court Rejects Insurer's Argument That Two Triggers Required

    A General Contractors Guide to Bond Thresholds by State

    Collapse of Underground Storage Cave Not Covered

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

    Do Not Lose Your Mechanics Lien Right Through a Subordination Agreement

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (01/25/23) – Artificial Intelligence, Proptech Innovation, and Drone Adoption

    Construction Law Client Advisory: What The Recent Beacon Decision Means For Developers And General Contractors

    With VA Mechanic’s Liens Sometimes “Substantial Compliance” is Enough (but don’t count on it) [UPDATE]

    The Benefits of Trash Talking: A Cautionary Tale of Demolition Gone Wrong

    Louisiana 13th in List of Defective Bridges

    Judge Tells DOL to Cork its Pistol as New Overtime Rule is Blocked

    California Assembly Passes Expedited Dam Safety for Silicon Valley Act

    Vertical vs. Horizontal Exhaustion – California Supreme Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Policyholders

    Michigan: Identifying and Exploiting the "Queen Exception" to No-Fault Subrogation

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

    Security on Large Construction Projects. The Payment Remedy You Probably Never Heard of

    COVID-izing Your Construction Contract

    Single-Family Home Starts Seen Catching Up to Surging U.S. Sales

    How a 10-Story Wood Building Survived More Than 100 Earthquakes

    Privity Problems Continue for Additional Insureds in the Second Circuit

    Seattle Council May Take a New Look at Micro-Housing

    Increasing Use of Construction Job Cameras

    The 2023 Term of the Supreme Court: Administrative and Regulatory Law Rulings

    Philadelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence
    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

    What If There Is a Design Error?

    October 30, 2023 —
    Many challenges can crop up when working on a construction project. Among these challenges, errors are the last thing that contractors or project owners want to face. Yet, they are not uncommon as you navigate the process. Design errors or mistakes are one such issue that can result in serious construction disputes and delays. It is important to determine who is liable when it comes to defects and design errors. So, who is responsible for design errors? Many might assume the architect – or the person who created the project design – is responsible for design errors. That is not necessarily true. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott L. Baker, Baker & Associates
    Mr. Baker may be contacted at slb@bakerslaw.com

    PATH Station Designed by Architect Known for Beautiful Structures, Defects, and Cost Overruns

    October 01, 2013 —
    The new PATH station at the World Trade Center site in New York is six years behind schedule and its cost has doubled to $4 billion dollars. But maybe New Yorkers shouldn’t be surprised. The New York Times reports that the Port Authority, which operates the PATH trains between New York and New Jersey, hired Santiago Calatrava, an architect whose work has frequently lead to cost overruns and claims of defects. The problems in lower Manhattan are not all Mr. Calatrava’s fault. Auditors described the Port Authority as “a challenged and dysfunctional organization.” (A separate report in the New York Times notes that a former PATH executive may have walked away with the rights to the words “World Trade Center” for $10. The company he subsequently founded, The World Trade Center Association, charges millions for the use of the name.) One problem with Mr. Calatrava’s design for the station is that he insisted that all the mechanical elements of the station be located in other buildings. Further, the Port Authority might want to examine those plans carefully. In the design for a museum in Valencia, Spain, Mr. Calatrava forgot to provide for handicap access or fire escapes. That project, according to the Times tripled in cost as it was built. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Appellate Court Holds Insurer’s Failure to Defend Does Not Constitute a “Reasonable Excuse” Required to Overturn Judgment

    January 21, 2019 —
    A recent opinion by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (Second Department) highlights the potential risks for an insurer leaving an insured unrepresented while the insurer pursues other parties or insurers who may be primarily responsible for defending the insured. In refusing to overturn a default judgment entered against an insured while its insurer knew that a complaint had been filed but refused to defend, the New York court’s decision raises questions about how claims adjusters are to effectively manage new claims to prevent a default judgment being entered against the insured, while at the same time ensuring that the appropriate party or insurance company handles the insured’s defense. In Kaung Hea Lee v. 354 Management Inc., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7749 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 14, 2018) (354 Management) the underlying plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against the defendant insured due to its failure to answer the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs then moved to determine the extent of damages to which they were entitled by virtue of the default judgment. The defendant opposed that motion, relying on an affidavit from a senior liability claims adjuster employed by the defendant’s insurer. “In the affidavit, the claim adjuster stated that she did not assign an attorney to answer the complaint because the codefendant . . . was contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the defendant [insured], and she had been attempting to have either [the codefendant] or its insurer provide an attorney” for the defendant. However, it was determined that the claims adjuster knew about the plaintiffs’ complaint two weeks after the plaintiffs served it on the defendant and months before the plaintiffs moved for default judgment. Despite this knowledge, the defendant’s insurer did not provide a defense or, apparently, obtain an extension of time to respond to the complaint, which led to the default judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    How to Mitigate Lien Release Bond Premiums with Disappearing Lien Claimants

    May 20, 2019 —
    It is one of those dreaded business situations that plagues the construction industry, especially in times of economic downturn—what to do when a lower-tier entity files a lien against a property then disappears. It has happened to countless owners, general contractors, subcontractors, and even some particularly unlucky sub-tier subcontractors and suppliers. Here is how it arises: a project is moving along, then performance or payment issues arise, and a company that is over extended or unwilling to continue work stops performance, walks off the job, and files a lien against the property for whatever amounts were allegedly unpaid. Often, the allegedly unpaid sums were legitimately withheld due to a good faith dispute over payment/performance, and it is not unusual for the defaulting entity to not be entitled to any of the sums claimed in the lien. Regardless, the lien stays on the property, and pressure is applied from the “upstream” entities to the party who contracted with the defaulting entity to “deal” with the lien. Oftentimes, a contract will require the parties to “deal” with a lien by obtaining a lien release bond (“release bond”). For those lucky enough to not have encountered this issue, a release bond is a nifty statutory device whereby a surety agrees to record a release bond for the full claimed amount of the lien, with the release bond substituting in for the liened property, effectively discharging the property from liability under the lien. In other words, the lien is released from the property and attaches to the release bond. If the lien claimant recovers on its lien, it is technically satisfied by the surety providing the release bond (or the party who agrees to indemnify and defend the release bond). In exchange for delivering the release bond, the surety demands yearly premiums be paid on the release bond amount Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott MacDonald, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. MacDonald may be contacted at scott.macdonald@acslawyers.com

    Read the Property Insurance Policy to be Sure You are Complying with Post Loss Obligations

    January 04, 2021 —
    I have discussed this before in prior postings, but it is worth repeating. It is imperative for an insured to comply with post loss obligations in a property insurance policy. Not doing so gives the insurer the argument that its insured forfeited coverage under the policy. Naturally, this is never what an insured wants as this is contrary to submitting an insurance claim to begin with. To avoid this situation, an insured should consult with counsel and read the policy including endorsements issued to the policy to be sure that post loss obligations are complied with and, if they are not, there is a basis supported by case law. In a recent case, Goldberg v. Universal Property and Casualty Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2118b (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), the property insurance policy for hurricanes and windstorms contained the following through an endorsement issued to the policy: You must give notice of a claim, a supplemental claim, or reopened claim for loss or damage caused by the peril of windstorm or hurricane, with us in accordance with the terms of this policy and within three years after the hurricane first made landfall or the windstorm caused the covered damage. For purposes of this Section, the term “supplemental claim” or “reopened claim” means any additional claim for recovery from us for losses from the same hurricane or windstorm which we have previously adjusted pursuant to the initial claim. . . . 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

    Fannie-Freddie Propose Liquidity Rules for Mortgage Insurers

    July 16, 2014 —
    Ms. Benson may be contacted at cbenson20@bloomberg.net; Mr. Tracer may be contacted at ztracer1@bloomberg.net Private mortgage insurers looking to do business with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have to hold minimum amounts of liquid assets under standards proposed by the companies and their regulator. To back loans packaged into securities by the U.S.-owned mortgage-finance giants, insurers would have to hold liquid assets worth at least 5.6 percent of their risk exposure, and possibly more depending on the quality of the loans they cover, according to the proposal released today by the companies and the Federal Housing Finance Agency. “Mortgage insurance counterparties must be able to fulfill their intended role of providing private capital, even in adverse market conditions,” FHFA Director Melvin L. Watt said in an e-mailed statement. Ms. Benson may be contacted at cbenson20@bloomberg.net; Mr. Tracer may be contacted at ztracer1@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Clea Benson and Zachary Tracer, Bloomberg

    20 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2020 Top Lawyers!

    August 24, 2020 —
    Congratulations to Wilke Fleury’s featured attorneys who made the Sacramento Magazine’s Top Lawyer List for 2020! Each attorney has been awarded an accolade in the following practice areas: Kathryne Baldwin – Insurance Dan Baxter – Business Litigation & Government Contracts Adriana Cervantes – Medical Malpractice Heather Claus – Health Care Aaron Claxton – Health Care Dan Egan – Bankruptcy and Creditor/Debtor Samson Elsbernd – Employment & Labor Danny Foster – Litigation Insurance David Frenznick – Construction & Construction Litigation George Guthrie – Real Estate & Construction Litigation Ron Lamb – Medical Malpractice Neal Lutterman – Medical Malpractice Steve Marmaduke – Business/Corporate & Real Estate Gene Pendergast – Estate Planning & Probate Mike Polis – Health Care Matthew Powell – Business Litigation Bianca Samuel – Employment & Labor Shannon Smith-Crowley – Legislative & Governmental Affairs Spencer Turpen – Medical Malpractice Steve Williamson – Business Litigation & Bankruptcy and Creditor/Debtor Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury

    Earth Movement Exclusion Precludes Coverage

    July 20, 2020 —
    The Federal District Court, District of Hawaii, found the earth movement exclusion barred coverage for the contractor when a landslide damaged the property. North River Ins. Co. v. H.K. Constr. Corp., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90110 (D. Haw. May 22, 2020). Bruce and Yulin Bingle sued HK for damage caused to the Bingle property. HK was hired as the contractor for the construction of a new residence and improvements on their property in Kaneohe. HK excavated near the boundary of the neighbors' and the Bingle's property in order to cut the existing slope to build a retaining wall. Due to the excavation work, the slope on the Bingle property failed and soil eroded away. At the time, the Bingles were selling their property. Due to the landslide, the buyer decided not to buy the property. The Department of Planning and Permitting issued a Notice of Violation for failure to obtain a grading permit. HK notified its carrier, North River. North River agreed to defend under a reservation of rights, but then filed suit against HK for a declaratory judgment. 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