BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut testifying construction 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


    Third Circuit Court of Appeals Concludes “Soup to Nuts” Policy Does Not Include Faulty Workmanship Coverage

    Man Pleads Guilty in Construction Kickback Scheme

    Napa Quake Seen Costing Up to $4 Billion as Wineries Shut

    NYC Design Firm Executives Plead Guilty in Pay-to-Play Scheme

    Judge Halts Sale of Brazilian Plywood

    10 Haight Lawyers Recognized in Best Lawyers in America© 2022 and The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2022

    Construction Contract Terms Matter. Be Careful When You Draft Them.

    EPA Announces that January 2017 Revised RMP Rules are Now Effective

    Despite Health Concerns, Judge Reaffirms Sentence for Disbarred Las Vegas Attorney

    Five-Year Peak for Available Construction Jobs

    Location, Location, Location—Even in Construction Liens

    Palm Beach Billionaires’ Fix for Sinking Megamansions: Build Bigger

    MDL for Claims Against Manufacturers and Distributors of PFAS-Containing AFFFs Focuses Attention on Key Issues

    Settlement Conference May Not Be the End in Construction Defect Case

    Build Me A Building As Fast As You Can

    Is It Time to Revisit Construction Defects in Kentucky?

    BWB&O Partner Jack Briscoe and Associate Anoushe Marandjian Win Summary Judgment Motion on Behalf of Homeowner Client!

    Construction News Roundup

    Reasons to Be Skeptical About a Millennial Homebuying Boom in 2016

    Case Alert Update: SDV Case Tabbed as One of New York’s Top Three Cases to Watch

    Insurance Tips for Contractors

    Kushner Company Files Suit Against Jersey City Over Delays to Planned Towers

    Federal Miller Act Payment Bond Claim: Who Gets Paid and Who Does Not? What Are the Deadlines?

    The Small Stuff: Small Claims Court and Limited Civil Court Jurisdictional Limits

    Texas Condo Construction Defect Code Amended

    The Roads to Justice: Building New Bridges

    South Africa Wants Payment From Colluding World Cup Builders

    Construction defect firm Angius & Terry moves office to Roseville

    Seven Trends That Impact Commercial Construction Litigation in 2021

    The Trend in the Economic Loss Rule in Construction Defect Litigation

    Personal Injury Claims – The Basics

    Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (11/02/22) – Flexible Workspaces, Sustainable Infrastructure, & Construction Tech

    Amazon Can be Liable in Louisiana

    Insured's Failure to Challenge Trial Court's Application of Exclusion Makes Appeal Futile

    Construction Defect Claim Must Be Defended Under Florida Law

    Fifth Circuit Asks Texas Supreme Court to Clarify Construction Defect Decision

    Just Because You Record a Mechanic’s Lien Doesn’t Mean You Get Notice of Foreclosure

    Zillow Seen Dominating U.S. Home Searches with Trulia

    U.K. Construction Unexpectedly Strengthens for a Second Month

    How the Science of Infection Can Make Cities Stronger

    New Joint Venture to Develop a New Community in Orange County, California

    San Francisco Half-Built Apartment Complex Destroyed by Fire

    North Dakota Supreme Court Clarifies Breadth of Contractual Liability Coverage

    Manhattan Homebuyers Pay Up as Sales Top Listing Price

    The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds

    Who is Responsible for Construction Defect Repairs?

    Jobs Machine in U.S. Created More Than Burger Flippers Last Year

    Baltimore Project Pushes To Meet Federal Deadline

    Texas Federal District Court Dismisses COVID-19 Claim
    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

    No Additional Insured Coverage for Subcontractor's Work Outside Policy Period

    August 19, 2015 —
    In a dispute between two insurers, the district court determined that the contractor was not an additional insured under the subcontractor's policy. Navigators Spec. Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79338 (N. D. Cal. June 17, 2015). McDevitt & McDevitt Construction Corporation was the general contractor for construction of a condominium complex. McDevitt was insured by Navigators Specialty Insurance Company. F&M was a subcontractor for the project for providing structural steel components. F&M's subcontract required it to obtain liability insurance and name McDevitt as an additional insured under a policy that was to be primary. F&M secured a policy with North American Capacity Insurance Company (NAC) which included an endorsement for additional insureds. The endorsement provided that an entity could be an additional insured only with respect to "occurrences resulting from work performed by you during the policy period, or occurrences resulting from the conduct of your business during the policy period." McDevitt and F&M were sued for construct defect claims. Navigators defended McDevitt and NAC defended F&M. Navigators tendered McDevitt's defense to NAC because McDevitt was an additional insured under NAC's policy. NAC disclaimed 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

    The Practical Distinction Between Anticipatory Breach and Repudiation and How to Deal with Both on Construction Projects

    June 10, 2024 —
    When a multilevel construction project is underway and a contractor or subcontractor isn’t performing as expected, it can be difficult to know how to address the low performance without putting the parties’ contract and good working relationship at risk. However, there may come a time when poor performance lapses into a something much worse: an anticipatory breach or repudiation of the subject contract. Imagine Scenario One: You are a general contractor managing a large-scale construction project and one of your subcontractors is falling behind on their work. The project manager for the subcontractor calls you and says, “Look, I don’t think we’re going to be able to hit our next milestone, and probably not the next one after that.” A conversation like this would generally trigger concern for most general contractors, but it would not necessarily invoke panic. These types of delay conversations are not uncommon on large scale projects. Compare that example, however, with Scenario Two, where the subcontractor instead says, “We received an offer to work another job for much more money, so we’re leaving the project site today and will not be returning.” This is obviously different (and potentially worse) than Scenario One, and likely cause for much greater concern. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Devon Griger, Jones Walker
    Ms. Griger may be contacted at dgriger@joneswalker.com

    Biden Administration Focus on Environmental Justice Raises Questions for Industry

    March 22, 2021 —
    The Biden Administration has left no doubt that it intends to prioritize environmental justice (EJ) in implementing energy and environmental policy. While EJ is not new – in fact, President Clinton signed the first EJ Executive Order (EO 12898) in 1994 – the new Administration’s plan to expand the concept to include “climate justice” and “health equity” is both novel and undefined. Similar to actions taken on climate change (see our previous alert from January 28), President Biden has announced plans for elevating EJ by designating new Cabinet level offices, intensifying enforcement, and advocating for Congressional action. Given the likelihood of serious impacts from these sweeping changes, industry will need to step up engagement as these concepts are integrated into regulatory decisions and U.S. positions globally. Authority for addressing injustice caused by environmental pollution that disproportionately affects certain communities is found in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act imposed a responsibility on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) to ensure that its funds are not being used to subsidize discrimination, based on race, color, or national origin, making EPA’s Office of Civil Rights responsible for the investigation and enforcement of Title VI within the Agency. President Clinton relied on this authority in signing EO 12898, which directed federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and, going beyond the protections covered by Title VI, low-income populations. Reprinted courtesy of Karen C. Bennett, Lewis Brisbois, Jane C. Luxton, Lewis Brisbois, Rose Quam-Wickham, Lewis Brisbois and William J. Walsh, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Quam-Wickham may be contacted at Rose.QuamWickham@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Walsh may be contacted at William.Walsh@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Explore Legal Immigration Options for Construction Companies

    August 29, 2022 —
    Although the visa options are limited, there are some that can be explored by construction companies in the United States, including the following. H-1B The H-1B visa category may be available for construction positions that require at least a bachelor’s degree in a specific field such as civil engineering, construction management or accounting. The timing can be challenging if an employer is looking to hire a recent graduate or someone outside of the United States for a role because of the H-1B lottery but can work well if the candidate is already in H-1B status and working for another company. These visas are site-specific, so they may need amending if a worker is moved from one site to another. H-2B The H-2B visa category is an option if the construction work is seasonal in nature and recurs each year, and if the company can plan its specific needs sufficiently far in advance. Timing is difficult with these; they require proving a shortage of U.S. workers and are subject to a lottery system like the H-1B. Reprinted courtesy of Megan R. Naughton, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Landlord Duties of Repair and Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

    February 10, 2020 —
    A recent case from Division I Washington Court of Appeals addressed both a landlord’s duties of repair and maintenance and the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment in commercial leases. Votiv, Inc. v. Bay Vista Owner LLC, No. 78289-4-I, 2019 WL 4419446 (Wash. Ct. App., Sept. 16, 2019). The Plaintiff in that case leased an office space in a mixed-use residential/office/commercial building in Seattle. Although the ownership groups of the various portions of the building were each separate, the entire building was managed by defendant Bay Vista Owner LLC (“BVO”), that was also the Plaintiff’s landlord. There was a need to replace a deteriorating roof membrane to repair water intrusion into the building. The work involved significant demolition on the roof surface over the premises that Votiv, Inc. (“Votiv”), a music/media company, leased on the top floor. The repair work was done primarily during business hours causing significant disturbance to Votiv’s business operations. Votiv sued BVO and other defendants for, among other things, nuisance, breach of lease, constructive eviction, and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. The trial court denied Votiv’s claim for injunctive relief and granted summary judgment to the Defendants. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence S. Glosser, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Glosser may be contacted at larry.glosser@acslawyers.com

    Ohio Does Not Permit Retroactive Application of Statute of Repose

    October 08, 2014 —
    Don Gregory of Kegler Brown Hill + Ritter (published in Association of Corporate Counsel) reported that while Ohio currently has a statute of repose, the Supreme Court of Ohio recently ruled in a case where the development was built in 1990 but the defects weren’t discovered until 2003 that the statute of repose did not apply since “Ohio had no enforceable statute of repose in 2003 (it had been declared unconstitutional).” Gregory stated that “[t]his case means that some construction defect claims, by condo associations or others, may survive even though construction was completed more than a decade ago.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in 2019 Edition of Who’s Who Legal

    June 10, 2019 —
    Traub Lieberman attorneys Richard K. Traub and Richard J. Bortnick have been recognized in Who’s Who Legal Insurance & Reinsurance: Lawyers. Published by London-based Law Business Research Limited, Who’s Who Legal recognizes the premier legal practitioners in multiple areas of business law. Start in 1996, Who’s Who Legal has recognized over 24,000 private practice lawyers and 2,500 consulting experts from over 150 national jurisdictions across the globe. Traub is a founder and co-managing partner of Traub Lieberman who works in a wide array of fields, including construction, pharmaceutical, product manufacturing, technology, insurance and reinsurance. Bortnick is a Partner in the firm’s New Jersey office who counsels clients on cyber and technology risks, exposures and best practices, cyber breach response management and interaction with regulators. He also handles matters involving directors’ and officers’ liability, professional liability, insurance coverage, and commercial litigation matters. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Tennessee Court of Appeals Holds Defendant Has the Burden of Offering Alternative Measure of Damages to Prove that Plaintiff’s Measure of Damages is Unreasonable

    July 18, 2018 —
    In Durkin v. MTown Construction, LLC, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee considered whether the lower court properly took judicial notice of an alternative measure of damages to the measure of damages advanced by the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant has the burden of offering evidence of alternative measures of damages if it seeks to argue that the plaintiff’s measure of the damages is unreasonable. The Court of Appeals found that the lower court erred in taking judicial notice of alternative measures of damage when the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof. The court’s holding establishes that, if the defendant does not offer evidence of alternative measures of damage, then the measure of damages introduced by the plaintiff will apply. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com