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


    Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

    Team Temporarily Stabilizes Delaware River Bridge Crack

    Montana Theater Threatened by Closure due to Building Safety

    As Laura Wreaks Havoc Along The Gulf, Is Your Insurance Ready to Respond?

    Unjust Enrichment Claims When There Is No Binding Contract

    Navigating Construction Contracts in the Energy Sector – Insights from Sheppard Mullin’s Webinar Series

    Key Legal Considerations for Modular Construction Contracts

    Reminder: Your Accounting and Other Records Matter

    Occurrence-Based Insurance Policies and Claims-Made Insurance Policies – There’s a Crucial Difference

    Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes Six Partners and Three Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/10/24) – Strong Construction Investment in Data Centers, Increase Use of Proptech in Hospitality and Effects of Remote-Work on Housing Market

    Owner’s Obligation Giving Notice to Cure to Contractor and Analyzing Repair Protocol

    Brown and Caldwell Appoints Stigers as Design Chief Engineer

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California FAIR Plan Limited to Coverage Provided by Statutory Fire Insurance Policy

    Timely and Properly Assert Affirmative Defenses and Understand Statutory Conditions Precedent

    Celebrating Dave McLain’s Recognition in the Best Lawyers in America® 2025

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

    New Highway for Olympics Cuts off Village near Sochi, Russia

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (08/15/23) – Manufacturing Soars with CHIPS Act, New Threats to U.S. Infrastructure and AI Innovation for One Company

    Construction News Roundup

    Brookfield to Start Manhattan Tower After Signing Skadden

    Building Resiliency: Withstanding Wildfires and Other Natural Disasters

    Eleventh Circuit Finds Professional Services Exclusion Applies to Construction Management Activities

    Construction Termination Issues Part 6: This is the End (Tips for The Design Professional)

    May Heat Wave Deaths Prompt New Cooling Rules in Chicago

    Consolidated Case With Covered and Uncovered Allegations Triggers Duty to Defend

    Nevada’s Changing Liability Insurance Landscape—State Insurance Regulator Issues Emergency Regulation and Guidance Addressing Controversial “Defense-Within-Limits” Legislation

    Issue and Claim Preclusion When Forced to Litigate Similar Issues in Different Forums: White River Village, LLP v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland

    In Contracts, One Word Makes All the Difference

    Details Matter: The Importance of Strictly Following Public Bid Statutes

    North Carolina Should Protect Undocumented Witnesses to Charlotte Scaffolding Deaths, Unions Say

    Economic Loss Doctrine Bars Negligence Claim Against Building Company Owner, Individually

    Examining Best Practices for Fire Protection of Critical Systems in Buildings

    ASHRAE Seeks Comments by May 26 on Draft of Pathogen Mitigation Standard

    Courthouse Reporter Series - How to Avoid Having Your COVID-19 Expert Stricken

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Fastball Right to the Bean!”

    There Are Consequences to Executed Documents Such as the Accord and Satisfaction Defense

    Should CGL Insurer have Duty to Defend Insured During Chapter 558 Notice of Construction Defects Process???

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in “The Best Lawyers in America” & “Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch” 2025 Editions

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Sudden Death”

    Corporate Formalities: A Necessary Part of Business

    Pending Home Sales in U.S. Increase Less Than Forecast

    New York Nonprofit Starts Anti-Scaffold Law Video Series

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    California Imposes New Disabled Access Obligations on Commercial Property Owners

    Depreciating Labor Costs May be Factor in Actual Cash Value

    Construction Goes Green in Orange County

    Arizona Court Cites California Courts to Determine Construction Defect Coverage is Time Barred

    Federal Public Works Construction Collection Remedies: The Miller Act Payment Bond Claim
    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

    Undercover Sting Nabs Eleven Illegal Contractors in California

    January 27, 2014 —
    A sting operation conducted in Rancho Murieta, California on January 16th by the Statewide Investigative Fraud Team, with assistance from the state Department of Consumer Affairs Division of Investigation netted “11 people accused of illegal, unlicensed home improvement contracting,” reported the Merced Sun-Star. The news source stated that “the statewide drought” provided “a new angle in approaching conservation-minded property owners, according to the Contractors State License Board.” The accusations included “illegal contracting after seeking bids for exterior painting, fencing and landscaping jobs,” according to the Merced Sun-Star. The eleven individuals received notices to appear in Sacramento Superior Court for arraignment March 27th. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    First-Time Homebuyers Make Biggest Share of Deals in 17 Years

    February 22, 2018 —
    Millennials are playing homeownership catch-up. First-time buyers rushed into the market last year, making 38 percent of all U.S. single-family home purchases, the biggest share since 2000, data released Thursday by Genworth Mortgage Insurance show. The 2.07 million new or existing homes bought by first-timers was 7 percent more than in 2016, according to the insurer, part of Genworth Financial Inc. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg

    Demonstrating A Fraudulent Inducement Claim Or Defense

    May 18, 2020 —
    In a recent case, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s denial of a motion for a temporary injunction sought by an employer due to an independent contractor’s violation of a non-compete and non-solicitation provision in an employment / independent contractor agreement (“employment agreement”). You can find more on this case and the enforcement of the non-compete and non-solicitation clause here. A worthy discussion in this case centers on the independent contractor’s fraudulent inducement defense. Specifically, the independent contractor, as a defense to the injunction, claimed that he was fraudulently induced into entering into the employment agreement because the employer promised he would make a certain amount of money and he would work predominantly in one geographic location. The employment agreement contained NO such representations. Instead, the employment agreement contained a fee and services schedule and the independent contractor would be compensated based on that schedule. It stated nothing as to the independent contractor only having to work, or predominantly working, in one geographic location, or that the independent contractor would be guaranteed “X” amount of money working in that location. Why is this important? 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

    Design Immunity of Public Entities: Sometimes Designs, Like Recipes, are Best Left Alone

    October 21, 2015 —
    April 23, 1985 will live in infamy. The Coca Cola Company, responding to diminishing sales as its “sweeter” rival Pepsi-Cola gained market share, announced that it was changing its “secret” recipe and introducing a new kind of Coke, referred to by the public simply as, “new Coke.” The reaction was unexpected. People around the world began hoarding “old Coke.” Protest groups, such as the Society for the Preservation of the Real Thing and Old Cola Drinkers of America, sprang up around the county. Angry letters addressed to “Chief Dodo” were sent to Coca-Cola’s chief executive officer. And even Fidel Castro, a longtime Coca-Cola drinker, joined the backlash calling “new Coke” a “sign of American capital decadence.” By July it was over. Coca-Cola announced that it would once again produce “old Coke,” and in a sign (I’m sure Fidel Castro would say) of American arrogance, announced that “old Coke” would be produced under the name “Coca-Cola Classic” alongside “new Coke” which would continue to be called “Coca-Cola” suggesting that “new Coke” would be the Coke of today as well as the future. By 1992, however, “new Coke” whose sales dwindled to 3% of market share was demoted to “Coke II” and by 2002 was discontinued entirely. The moral of the story: Change the recipe at your own risk. Castro v. City of Thousand Oaks In the next case, Castro v. City of Thousand Oaks, Case No. B258649, California Court of Appeals for the Second District (August 31, 2015), the corollary might well be change the recipe design at your own risk. 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

    Brazil's Detained Industry Captain Says No Plea Deals Coming

    September 03, 2015 —
    Marcelo Odebrecht, the most prominent executive who has been detained in Brazil’s largest corruption scandal, said he sees no reason to strike a plea bargain with authorities because he has nothing to reveal. Odebrecht said in a congressional hearing Tuesday that he probably discussed with President Dilma Rousseff and her predecessor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva the relationship between Odebrecht SA and Petrobras, the state-controlled oil producer at the center of the kickback investigation. It was a natural topic given the economic importance of his construction and engineering empire, he said. He declined to answer questions related to the criminal case, saying it is ongoing and he is unaware of the full extent of the accusations. Reprinted courtesy of Sabrina Valle, Bloomberg and Yasmine Batista, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Steven Cvitanovic Recognized in JD Supra's 2017 Readers' Choice Awards

    April 05, 2017 —
    JD Supra named Partner Steven Cvitanovic among the Top 10 Authors in the construction industry in its 2017 Readers’ Choice Awards, which recognizes the excellence and achievement of firms and authors who published their substantive work on JD Supra in 2016. JD Supra editors chose the 25 industries and topics covered in these awards for their timeliness as well as their proven, ongoing importance. In each category, one firm and ten authors were recognized for consistently achieving the highest readership and engagement for all of 2016. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com

    New Illinois Supreme Court Trigger Rule for CGL Personal Injury “Offenses” Could Have Costly Consequences for Policyholders

    March 09, 2020 —
    The Illinois Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sanders v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., 2019 IL 124565 (2019), announced the standard for triggering general liability coverage for malicious prosecution claims under Illinois law. In its decision, the court construed what appears to be a policy ambiguity against the policyholder in spite of the longstanding rule of contra proferentem, limiting coverage to policies in place at the time of the wrongful prosecution, and not the policies in effect when the final element of the tort of malicious prosecution occurred (i.e. the exoneration of the plaintiff). The net result of the court’s ruling for policyholders susceptible to such claims is that coverage for jury verdicts for malicious prosecution – awarded in today’s dollars – is limited to the coverage procured at the time of the wrongful prosecution, which may (as in this case) be decades old. Such a scenario can have costly consequences for policyholders given that the limits procured decades ago are often inadequate due to the ever-increasing awards by juries as well as inflation. Moreover, it may be difficult to locate the legacy policies and the insurers that issued such policies may no longer be solvent or even exist. A copy of the decision can be found here. The Sanders case arose out of the wrongful conviction of Rodell Sanders in 1994 by the City of Chicago Heights (the “City”). Mr. Sanders sought recompense for, among other things, malicious prosecution through a federal civil rights action against the City. In September 2016, Mr. Sanders obtained a consent judgment for $15 Million; however, at the time of the wrongful conviction, seventeen years earlier, the City’s only applicable insurance policy provided just $3 million in coverage. The City contributed another $2 million towards the judgment and, in exchange for Mr. Sanders’s agreement not to seek the $10 million balance from the City, assigned its rights under the policies for the 2012 to 2014 period. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insured Cannot Sue to Challenge Binding Appraisal Decision

    December 16, 2023 —
    The court dismissed the insured condominium association's challenge to an appraisal award. The Courtyards at Prairie Fields Condominium Association v. West Band Mut. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169458 (N. D. Ill. Sept. 22, 2023). In July 2020, the insured filed a claim with West Bend for damage to the property's roof and other building components as a result of wind and hail. West Bend inspected and estimated the replacement cost for the damage was $60,989.54. This amount was paid to the insured minus the $10,000 deductible. The insured believed the damage was so severe that the roofs need to be replaced, which the insured estimated would cost $1,389,600. The insured demanded an appraisal. 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