BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim 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


    “To Indemnify, or Not to Indemnify, that is the Question: California Court of Appeal Addresses Active Negligence in Indemnity Provisions”

    When Customers Don’t Pay: What Can a Construction Business Do

    Construction Law Breaking News: California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Beacon Residential Community Association

    The Louvre Abu Dhabi’s Mega-Structure Domed Roof Completed

    Colorado Court of Appeals to Rule on Arbitrability of an HOA's Construction Defect Claims

    Select the Best Contract Model to Mitigate Risk and Achieve Energy Project Success

    Exculpatory Provisions in Business Contracts

    Governor Brown Signs Legislation Aimed at Curbing ADA Accessibility Abuses in California

    Serial ADA Lawsuits Targeting Small Business Owners

    Illinois Court Addresses Rip-And-Tear Coverage And Existence Of An “Occurrence” In Defective Product Suit

    Hurdles with Triggering a Subcontractor Performance Bond

    Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Act of 2020: Yet Another Reason to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses

    Flint Water Suits Against Engineers Will Go to Trial, Judge Says

    The Riskiest Housing Markets in the U.S.

    Congratulations to BWB&O Partner John Toohey and His Fellow Panel Members on Their Inclusion in West Coast Casualty’s 2022 Program!

    Mortgage Bonds Stare Down End of Fed Easing as Gains Persist

    NY Court Holds Excess Liability Coverage Could Never be Triggered Where Employers’ Liability Policy Provided Unlimited Insurance Coverage

    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

    Can a Non-Signatory Invoke an Arbitration Provision?

    Pulte’s Kitchen Innovation Throw Down

    The Coverage Fun House Mirror: When Things Are Not What They Seem

    Homebuyers Aren't Sweating the Fed

    Contractor’s Charge Of Improvements To Real Property Not Required For Laborers To Have Lien Rights

    NLRB Hits Unions with One-Two Punch the Week Before Labor Day

    Florida extends the Distressed Condominium Relief Act

    Natural Disasters’ Impact on Construction in the United States

    Kushners Abandon Property Bid as Pressures Mount Over Conflicts

    90 and 150: Two Numbers You Must Know

    Update Regarding New York City’s Climate Mobilization Act (CMA) and the Reduction of Carbon Emissions in New York City

    Justice Dept., EPA Ramp Up Environmental Justice Enforcement

    When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

    #12 CDJ Topic: Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015)

    Denial of Coverage for Bulge in Wall Upheld

    Montana Theater Threatened by Closure due to Building Safety

    Fee Simple!

    Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules

    Narrow House Has Wide Opposition

    No Coverage Where Cracks in Basement Walls Do Not Amount to Sudden Collapse

    John Boyden, Alison Kertis Named “Top Rank Attorneys” by Nevada Business Magazine

    Know your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in Effect

    Illinois Town Sues over Construction Defects at Police Station

    Construction Defect Claim Not Timely Filed

    No Additional Insured Coverage Under Umbrella Policy

    Dealing with Abandoned Property After Foreclosure

    Five Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Named “Top Rank Attorneys” by Nevada Business Magazine

    Payne & Fears LLP Recognized by Best Lawyers in 2024 “Best Law Firms” Rankings

    Eleventh Circuit Affirms Jury Verdict on Covered Property Loss

    Meet the Forum's Neutrals: TOM DUNN

    2018 Spending Plan Boosts Funding for Affordable Housing

    Insurer's Quote on Coverage for Theft by Hacker Creates Issue of Fact
    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

    Insurance Company’s Reservation of Rights Letter Negates its Interest in the Litigation

    November 12, 2019 —
    The Colorado Court of Appeals held that an insurance company, which issues a reservation of rights letter to its insured, loses its interest in the litigation, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2), when the insured settles the claims and assigns the bad faith action against the insurance company to the plaintiff. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 2019WL 3483901(Colo. App. 2019). In a 2016 lawsuit in Denver District Court, 2016CV3360, the Bolt Factory Loft Owners Association, Inc. (“Association”) asserted construction defect claims against six contractors. Two of those contractors then asserted claims against other subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra Glass”). After multiple settlements, the only remaining claims were those the Association, as assignee of the two contractors, asserted against Sierra Glass. Auto-Owners Insurance Company (“AOIC”) issued policies to Sierra Glass and defended it under a reservation of rights. The policy afforded AOIC the right to defend Sierra Glass, and it required Sierra Glass to cooperate in the defense of the legal action. The Association presented a settlement demand of $1.9 million to Sierra Glass, which AOIC refused to pay. To protect itself from an excess judgment that AOIC might not have paid, Sierra Glass entered into an agreement with the Association whereby Sierra Glass would refrain from offering a defense at trial and assign its bad faith claim against AOIC to the Association in exchange for the Association’s promise that it would not pursue recovery against Sierra Glass of any judgment entered against it at trial. Such agreements, known as Bashor or Nunn Agreements, are allowed in Colorado. Nunn v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., 244 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2010). Therefore, Sierra Glass was entitled to protect itself in the face of AOIC’s potential denial of coverage and refusal to settle. Bolt Factory Lofts, at ¶ 15. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Ingham may be contacted at ingham@hhmrlaw.com

    Burden of Proof Under All-Risk Property Insurance Policy

    January 31, 2018 —

    A recent Florida case, Jones v. Federated National Ins. Co., 43 Fla. L. Weekly D164a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) discusses the burden of proof of an insured in establishing coverage under an all-risk property insurance policy. Getting right to this critical point, the court explained the burden of proof as follows:

    1. The insured has the initial burden of proof to establish that the damage at issue occurred during a period in which the damaged property had insurance coverage. If the insured fails to meet this burden, judgment shall be entered in favor of the insurer.

    2. If the insured’s initial burden is met, the burden of proof shifts to the insurer to establish that (a) there was a sole cause of the loss, or (b) in cases where there was more than one cause, there was an “efficient proximate cause” of the loss.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    A Performance-Based Energy Code in Seattle: Will It Save Existing Buildings?

    August 11, 2011 —

    The City of Seattle has one of the most stringent energy codes in the nation. Based upon the Washington State Energy Code (which has been embroiled in litigation over its high standards), the code demands a lot from commercial developers. But, does it prevent developers from saving Seattle?s classic and old buildings? Perhaps.

    The general compliance procedure requires buildings to be examined during the permitting process. This means that buildings are examined before they begin operating. The procedure is not malleable and is applicable to all buildings, old and new, big and small.

    The downside of this procedure is that it eliminates awarding compliance to those buildings exhibiting a number of passive features, such as siting, thermal mass, and renewable energy production. This problem has prevented a number of interesting and architecturally pleasing existing building retrofits from getting off the ground. The cost of complying with the current system can be 20% more, and it might prevent builders from preserving a building?s historical integrity.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Supreme Court Holds that Prevailing Wages are Not Required for Mobilization Work, for Now

    October 18, 2021 —
    In the midst of the Great Depression the federal government enacted the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. section 32141 et seq.) to help workers on federal construction projects. Under the Davis-Bacon Act, minimum wages must be paid to workers on federal public works projects based on local “prevailing” wages. At the time, the goal of the law was to help curb the displacement of families by employers who were recruiting lower-wage workers from outside local areas. A darker history suggests that it was also intended to discourage minority workers from competing with unionized white workers. Fast forward to today. Many states, including California, adopted “Little Davis-Bacon” laws applying similar requirements on state and local public works projects. California’s prevailing wage law (Labor Code section 1720 et seq.) requires contractors on state and local public works projects pay their workers the general prevailing rate of per diem wages based on the classification or type of work performed by the employee in the locality where the project is located. Over the years, labor unions have sought to expand the definition of what constitutes a “public works project” from private residential developments receiving public funding (generally, prevailing wages required) to off-site fabrication of materials at permanent facility for a public works project (no prevailing wages required) to enforcement mechanisms such as making a general contractor liable for prevailing wage violations of its subcontractors (yes, indeedy, see Labor Code section 1775). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Construction Contracts Fall in Denver

    October 02, 2013 —
    After nearly a year of growth, residential construction contracts dropped 22% in the Denver area in August. Residential construction contracts are still above what they were before August 2012, but the gains since then have been wiped out. The value of contracts in August 2012 was $219.8 million, and this this August they have fallen to $171.7 million. Commercial construction also saw a reduction, however, there the fall was only 7%, dropping from $1.54 billion to $1.43 billion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hiring Subcontractors with Workers Compensation Insurance

    January 10, 2018 —
    You want to hear more on the POWER of statutory workers compensation immunity? Well, here it is, because as I have mentioned in the past, workers compensation immunity is powerful reinforcing the importance for contractors to ensure the subcontractors they hire absolutely have workers compensation insurance. Likewise, subcontractors want to ensure the subcontractors they hire also have workers compensation insurance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Luxury Homes Push City’s Building Permits Past $7.5 Million

    December 30, 2013 —
    The city of Ardmore, Oklahoma is seeing a building boom with the total value of building permits issued by the city in November slightly exceeded $7.5 million, reports Ardmoreite.com. Most of that total comes from residential construction, with the bulk of it coming from just three homes. While Lance Windel Construction plans on building 46 homes, the top value of those homes will be $153,000. The total value for the homes being built by three other firms is more $6.4 million, and those contractors are building just one home each. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Signed, Sealed and (Almost) Delivered: EU Council Authorizes Signing of U.S. – EU Bilateral Insurance Agreement

    August 02, 2017 —
    On July 14, 2017, the Trump administration released a statement indicating that the United States intends to sign the U.S. – EU bilateral insurance agreement. The announcement came several weeks after the Council of the European Union adopted a decision authorizing the signing of this agreement. The agreement attempts to “level the playing field for U.S. insurers and reinsurers operating in the EU.”[1] This U.S. – EU bilateral agreement is a direct response to EU’s January 2016 enactment of Solvency II. Solvency II is a legislative program implemented in all twenty-eight Member States, aimed at codifying EU insurance regulations in an attempt to protect policy holders and to incentivize risk management. We previously wrote about this comprehensive program of insurer regulatory requirements here. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stella Szantova Giordano, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Giordano may be contacted at ssg@sdvlaw.com