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


    Beth Cook Expands Insurance Litigation Team at Payne & Fears

    Construction Robots 2023

    Florida Court Gives Parties Assigned a Subrogation Claim a Math Lesson

    Clean Water Act Cases: Of Irrigation and Navigability

    The Fair Share Act Impacts the Strategic Planning of a Jury Trial

    Coloradoans Deserve More Than Hyperbole and Rhetoric from Plaintiffs’ Attorneys; We Deserve Attainable Housing

    Investigation of Orange County Landslide

    Floating Crane on Job in NYC's East River Has a Storied Past of Cold War Intrigue

    Boston’s Tunnel Project Plagued by Water

    Be Careful with Continuous Breach and Statute of Limitations

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds Fire Damage Resulted from Single Occurrence

    Eight Ways to Protect a Construction Company Before a Claim Is Filed

    General Contractor Cited for Safety Violations after Worker Fatality

    Snooze You Lose? Enforcement of Notice and Timing Provisions

    North Carolina Soil & Groundwater Case to be Heard by U.S. Supreme Court

    California Court Broadly Interprets Insurance Policy’s “Liability Arising Out of” Language

    Revisiting OSHA’s Controlling Employer Policy

    Owner’s Slander of Title Claim Against Contractor Recording Four Separate Mechanics Liens Fails Under the Anti-SLAPP Statute

    Apartment Building Damaged by Cable Installer’s Cherry Picker

    EEOC Builds on Best Practice Guidance Regarding Harassment Within the Construction Industry

    How One Squirrel Taught us a Surprising Amount about Insurance Investigation Lessons Learned from the Iowa Supreme Court

    Best Practices for Installing Networks in New Buildings

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    Elon Musk’s Proposed Vegas Strip Transit System Advanced by City Council Vote

    Construction Manager’s Win in Michigan after Michigan Supreme Court Finds a Subcontractor’s Unintended Faulty Work is an ‘Occurrence’ Under CGL

    Construction of New U.S. Homes Declines on Plunge in South

    Insurance Policies Broadly Defining “Suits” May Prompt an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify During the Chapter 558 Pre-Suit Notice Process

    Repairing One’s Own Work and the one Year Statute of Limitations to Sue a Miller Act Payment Bond

    Are COVID-19 Claims Covered by Builders Risk Insurance Policies?

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Sub-Contracted Electrical Company

    Jason Poore Receives 2018 Joseph H. Foster Young Lawyer Award

    Insurer's Appeal of Jury Verdict Rejected by Tenth Circuit

    Insurer's Failure to Settle Does Not Justify Multiple Damages under Unfair Claims Settlement Law

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm

    Enforceability Of Subcontract “Pay-When-Paid” Provisions – An Important Update

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds That CASPA Does Not Allow For Individual Claims Against A Property Owner’s Principals Or Shareholders

    Insured's Complaint Against Flood Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Falling Tree Causing Three Injuries/Deaths Is One Occurrence

    Contractors and Force Majeure: Contractual Protection from Hurricanes and Severe Weather

    A Guide to Evaluating Snow & Ice Cases

    Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Bars Coverage for Collapse of Building

    Hudson Tunnel Plan Shows Sign of Life as U.S. Speeds Review

    Several Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2022 Top Lawyers!

    Supreme Court Addresses Newly Amended Statute of Repose for Construction Claims

    Construction Payment Remedies: You May be Able to Skate by, But Why?

    Unlicensed Contractors Caught in a Sting Operation

    Key Legal Considerations for Modular Construction Contracts

    South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship

    The Texas Supreme Court Limits the Use of the Economic Loss Rule
    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

    School District Settles Over Defective Athletic Field

    December 11, 2013 —
    The Hillsboro, Oregon School District has settled a lawsuit with Mahlum Architects of Portland, one of the four companies sued by the school district over problems with a soccer field. The total lawsuit was for $1.7 million. The architects have settled for $25,000. The manufacturer of Astro Turf also settled with the school for an as-yet undisclosed amount. What the school describes as the “primary defendants” have yet to settle. The school had to close the soccer field when drainage problems lead to large holes in the playing field. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court of Appeal Puts the “Equity” in Equitable Subrogation

    October 05, 2020 —
    Subrogation as a concept is well understood in insurance circles. According to the Institute of Risk Management Institute’s glossary of insurance terms subrogation is “the assignment to an insurer by the terms of [a] policy or by law, after payment of a loss, of the rights fo the insured to recover the amount of the loss from one legally liable for it.” In other words, if an insurer comes out of pocket for something someone else broke, the insurer can turn to that responsible party for reimbursement of its out of pocket costs. Typically, subrogation is, as stated in IRMI’s glossary of insurance terms, a matter of contract and the rights and responsibilities of parties are set forth within the terms of a policy. However, subrogation may, as stated in IRMI’s glossary, also be matter of law. And this is where equitable subrogation comes in. “Equitable subrogation,” according to IRMI, is “the right of subrogation granted under common law when one party has made a payment on behalf of another and becomes entitled to whatever recovery rights the other party has against a responsible third party.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Maryland Finally set to Diagnose an Allocation Method for Progressive Injuries

    February 18, 2020 —
    Maryland’s highest court recently heard arguments regarding the proper method of allocation of the covered damages from a slowly progressing asbestos injury amongst insurance policies in place over a period of years. Rossello v. Zurich American Insurance Company, Case No. 2436 (Md. 2019). The court may also be forced to determine what the proper trigger of coverage is for latent bodily injury claims, although the plaintiff has not framed the issue in that manner. In Rossello, the plaintiff, Patrick Rossello, worked for a period of years for the now-defunct Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. (“Mitchell”), a construction company operating until 1976. In 1974 he was exposed to and inhaled asbestos fibers. He was ultimately diagnosed in 2013 with malignant mesothelioma as a result of that exposure. Rossello obtained a judgment for approximately $2,700,000 against Mitchell and secured the right to pursue its insurance. As relevant to this dispute, Mitchell carried liability insurance policies, which provide coverage for asbestos related claims, from 1974 to 1977. Rossello seeks to hold Zurich, as successor to Maryland Casualty Company, accountable for the full value of his award, based on the 1974 policy. Although this contention actually implicates two separate issues, plaintiff’s counsel passed over the initial trigger of coverage issue and focused instead on the issue of allocation of coverage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

    Jason Poore Receives 2018 Joseph H. Foster Young Lawyer Award

    July 21, 2018 —
    Jason Poore, an associate in the General Litigation Group, recently received the 2018 Joseph H. Foster Young Lawyer Award during the Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel’s annual meeting. The Joseph H. Foster Young Lawyer Award honors “a young lawyer who best exemplifies the qualities of professionalism and dedication as defense counsel in the practice of law and in the promotion of the highest ideals of justice in the community." Jason continues to make significant contributions to the local bar and community. In addition to serving on the Executive Committee of the Philadelphia Bar Association Young Lawyers Division, he is the creator and Chair of the PBA's Youth Courts Committee. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Poore, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Poore may be contacted at poorej@whiteandwilliams.com

    Suffolk Pauses $1.5B Boston Tower Project for Safety Audit After Fire

    April 22, 2024 —
    The team building the $1.5-billion, 51-story South Station Tower in Boston voluntarily shut down the jobsite April 9 for a safety stand down and audit after a small fire broke out, according to contractor Suffolk Construction. No one was injured. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

    May 01, 2014 —
    On the heels of a recent order regarding coverage under a Comprehensive General Insurance policy issued by Mt. Hawley Insurance Company (“Mt. Hawley”), builders should be very wary of CGL policies providing no coverage for property damage. On January 8, 2013, District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson granted a motion for declaratory judgment filed by Mt. Hawley. The order states that the subject insurance policies issued by Mt. Hawley to Mountain View Homes II, LLC (“MV Homes”), the builder developer of the Creek Side at Parker development (the “Project”), did not provide coverage for any of the work performed by MV Homes or its subcontractors on the Project. MV Homes originally began construction on the Project in 2002 and completed construction in 2005. MV Homes was insured by National Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“National Fire”) and Mt. Hawley. In December 2008, Creek Side at Parker Homeowners Association, Inc. (“the HOA”) served notice on MV Homes. The HOA then instituted a construction defect lawsuit on June 1, 2009 against MV Homes and others. MV Homes initially demanded a defense and indemnity from National Fire, which provided a defense. Then, after two years, MV Homes demanded a defense and indemnity from Mt. Hawley in July 2011. Mt. Hawley denied coverage and did not provide a defense. The case was settled soon after, and National Fire reserved or assigned claims against Mt. Hawley. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Picketing Threats

    July 09, 2019 —
    Letters from unions to owners, general contractors and other contractors informing them of the union’s dispute with one or more of the subcontractors, working at a common construction project site (or common situs), and of the union’s plans to engage in “public informational campaigns” at the site, in furtherance of the dispute, may constitute unlawful threats of secondary boycott. Unions often send letters to various employers that share a common construction project site, informing them that the union has a dispute with one or more of the subcontractors working or scheduled to work at the same site. In labor law, the employers that do not have a dispute with the union are referred to as “neutral employers,” in contrast with the employers with which the union has the dispute, referred to as “primary employers.” In the letters, the unions typically describe the reason for the labor dispute (e.g., alleged failure to pay “area standards”), request that the neutrals use their “managerial discretion” not to allow the primary employers to perform work at the project site until the dispute is resolved, and inform that the union will engage in public information campaigns against the primary employer at the common situs. The “public information campaign” is described in the union’s letter as including banner displays, distribution of handbills, picketing and other demonstration activity. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jerry Morales, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Morales may be contacted at jmorales@swlaw.com

    Scope of Alaska’s Dump Lien Statute Substantially Reduced For Natural Gas Contractors

    March 16, 2020 —
    In All American Oilfield, LLC v. Cook Inlet Energy, LLC,[1] the Supreme Court of Alaska clarified and substantially reduced a natural gas contractor’s ability to secure a preferred lien for its contribution to a natural gas well. Alaska’s dump lien statute (AS § 34.35.140) authorizes a laborer to claim a lien for the amount owed for their labor in the production of a “dump or mass” of “extracted, hoisted and raised” matter from a mine. While Alaska’s dump lien statute is one of three Alaskan statutes allowing laborers to attach liens to mines, mining equipment or minerals,[2] the dump lien statute is unique because it is prior and preferred over other liens, increasing the laborer’s chance of being paid in a bankruptcy proceeding. Attaching a lien to a “dump or mass” of hard-rock minerals piled outside a mine or oil stored in a tank is relatively straightforward. However, natural gas is typically left in its natural reservoir until removed by a pipeline that carries the gas to a location far from the mine. Natural gas is not extracted and stored in a “dump or mass” like other minerals, and until August 2019, controversy existed over how—or if—the dump lien statute could be used by natural gas contractors. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Trevor Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Lane may be contacted at trevor.lane@acslawyers.com