BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure 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


    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

    London Penthouse Will Offer Chance to Look Down at Royalty

    Maintenance Issues Ignite Arguments at Indiana School

    I’m Sorry Ms. Jackson, I [Sovereign Immunity] am For Real

    Fourteen Years as a Solo!

    Illinois Law Bars Coverage for Construction Defects in Insured's Work

    Engineer Proposes Slashing Scope of Millennium Tower Pile Upgrade

    California’s Right To Repair Act Is The Sole Remedy For Damages For Construction Defects In New Residential Construction

    Illinois Supreme Court Limits Reach of Implied Warranty Claims Against Contractors

    Real-Estate Pros Fight NYC Tax on Wealthy Absentee Owners

    Filling Out the Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    Colorado Drillers Show Sensitive Side to Woo Fracking Foes

    New ConsensusDocs 242 Design Professional Change Order Form Helps Facilitate Compensation for Changes in Design Services

    Notice of Claim Sufficient to Invoke Coverage

    Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)

    The Law Clinic Paves Way to the Digitalization of Built Environment Processes

    CA Supreme Court: Right to Repair Act (SB 800) is the Exclusive Remedy for Residential Construction Defect Claims – So Now What?

    Homeowner may pursue negligence claim for construction defect, Oregon Supreme Court holds

    Construction Defect Lawsuit Came too Late in Minnesota

    WSDOT Seeks Retraction of Waiver Excluding Non-Minority Woman-Owned Businesses from Participation Goals

    Coronavirus, Force Majeure, and Delay and Time-Impact Claims

    Resolving Subcontractor Disputes with Pass-Through Claims and Liquidation Agreements

    A Look at Trending Legislative Changes Impacting Workers' Comp

    Building with Recycled Plastics – Interview with Jeff Mintz of Envirolastech

    What Should Be in Every Construction Agreement

    Third Circuit Follows Pennsylvania Law - Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship Does Not Arise from an Occurrence

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    Coverage Article - To Settle or Not To Settle?

    Nine Gibbs Giden Partners Listed in Southern California Super Lawyers 2022

    Ignoring Employee ADA Accommodation Requests Can Be Costly – A Cautionary Tale

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Declarant Consent Provision to Amend Arbitration Out of Declarations

    TV Kitchen Remodelers Sued for Shoddy Work

    Couple Claims Poor Installation of Home Caused Defects

    War-Torn Ukraine Looks to Europe’s Green Plans for Reconstruction Ideas

    Subcontractors Have Remedies, Even if “Pay-if-Paid” Provisions are Enforced

    School District Practice Bulletin: Loose Lips Can Sink More Than Ships

    Release Of “Unknown” Claim Does Not Bar Release Of “Unaccrued” Claim: Fair Or Unfair?

    Is the Manhattan Bank of America Tower a Green Success or Failure?

    California Limits Indemnification Obligations of Design Professionals

    Slow Down?

    Owners and Contractors are Liable for Injuries Caused by their Independent Contractors under the “Peculiar Risk Doctrine”

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers Lists

    Chinese Millionaire Roils Brokers Over Shrinking Mansion

    Bright-Line Changes: Prompt Payment Act Trends

    Home Sales Going to Investors in Daytona Beach Area

    New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

    Improperly Installed Flanges Are Impaired Property

    New York Supreme Court Building Opening Delayed Again

    Hirer Liable for Injury to Subcontractor’s Employee Due to Failure to Act, Not Just Affirmative Acts, Holds Court of Appeal

    Construction Spending Had Strongest Increase in Four Years
    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. Drawing 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

    Randy Okland Honored as 2019 Intermountain Legacy Award Winner

    January 06, 2020 —
    A passion for construction is in Randy Okland’s blood. His family’s business, Salt Lake City’s Okland Construction, was founded in 1918 by his grandfather, John Okland, a Norwegian immigrant and shipbuilder. Randy swept the floors and cleaned and fueled company vehicles while working as a laborer and later as a carpenter and concrete former. After graduating from the University of Utah, Randy worked full time at Okland, eventually taking over leadership of the company from his father in 1980. Jennifer Seward, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... 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

    OSHA Launches Program to Combat Trenching Accidents

    October 16, 2018 —
    In the wake of a recent rise in fatal trenching cave-ins, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has begun a targeted education and enforcement program to try to reverse the trend. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

    The Fourth Circuit Applies a Consequential Damages Exclusionary Clause and the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Claims by a Subrogating Insurer Seeking to Recover Over $19 Million in Damages

    February 23, 2016 —
    In Severn Peanut Company, Inc. v. Industrial Fumigant Company, 807 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. (N.C.) 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit), applying North Carolina law, considered whether a consequential damages clause in a contract between the Severn Peanut Company, Inc. (Severn) and Industrial Fumigant Company (IFC) barred Severn and its subrogating insurer, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers), from recovering over $19 million in damages that Severn suffered as the result of a fire and explosion at its Severn, North Carolina plant. The Fourth Circuit, rejecting Severn’s unconscionability and public policy arguments related to the consequential damages clause and finding that the economic loss doctrine barred Severn from pursuing negligence claims, affirmed the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in IFC’s favor. As noted in the Severn decision, the facts showed that Severn and IFC signed a Pesticide Application Agreement (PAA) requiring IFC to use phosphine, a pesticide, to fumigate Severn’s peanut storage dome and to apply the pesticide “in a manner consistent with instructions . . . and precautions set forth in [its] labeling.” With respect to damages, the PAA specified that IFC’s charge for its services, $8,604 plus applicable sales tax, was “based solely upon the value of the services provided” and was not “related to the value of [Severn’s] premises or the contents therein.” In addition, the PAA specified that the $8,604 sum to which the parties agreed was not “sufficient to warrant IFC assuming any risk of incidental or consequential damages” to Severn’s “property, product, equipment, downtime, or loss of business.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Law Firm Fails to Survive Insurer's and Agent's Motions to Dismiss

    May 08, 2023 —
    Interpreting New Jersey law, the federal district court dismissed without prejudice the law firm's complaint against its insurer and agent. Law Office of Drew J. Bauman v. Hanover Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31844 (D. N. J. Feb. 27, 2023). The law firm had a professional liability policy issued by Hanover. The law firm was sued in the underlying case involving a real estate transaction. The law firm tendered the defense and indemnity of the underlying complaint, but coverage was denied. The law firm sued, contending Hanover breached the policy by refusing to abide by its obligations under the policy. In the alternative, the law firm alleged that its agent, USI Insurance Services, LLC, was liable if the policy did not require Hanover to defend and indemnify in the underlying case. It was further alleged that USI was responsible for procuring coverage for the law firm and knew of its insurance needs. USI was negligent in securing a policy with inadequate coverage. 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

    Fundamental Fairness Trumps Contract Language

    September 24, 2014 —
    The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that a “no-damages-for-delay” clause would not be enforced where the delay was caused by the owner. The court’s ruling flies squarely in the face of the contract language that attempted to insulate the owner from any delay claims, even those it caused. In the case of Zachary Construction v. Port of Houston underlying contract, proposed by the Port of Houston, was heavy handed, to say the least. The contract provided: “[Contractor] shall receive no financial compensation for delay or hindrance to the Work. In no event shall the Port Authority be liable to [Contractor] … for any damages arising out of or associated with any delay or hindrance to the Work, regardless of the source of the delay or hindrance, including events of Force Majeure, AND EVEN IF SUCH DELAY OR HINDRANCE RESULTS FROM, ARISES OUT OF OR IS DUE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, TO THE NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR OTHER FAULT OF THE PORT AUTHORITY. [Contractor’s] sole remedy in any such case shall be an extension of time.” Wow, that’s some one-sided language. If the contract was enforced, the contractor could not get any damages for delay, even those damages caused by the active interference of the Port of Houston. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    California Case That Reads Like Russian Novel Results in Less Than Satisfying Result for Both Project Owner and Contractors

    May 01, 2019 —
    Sometimes you can see a train wreck coming a mile away. The next case, Design Built Systems v. Sorokine, Court of Appeal for the First District, Case Nos. A151264 and A152059 (February 26, 2019), is one of those cases. It also happens to read like a Tolstoy novel. The Beginning of the Train Wreck Alexei Sorokine and Elena Koudriavtseva, husband and wife, owned a single family home in San Rafael, California. Sorokine had acquired the house prior to his marriage to Koudriavtseva. In 2010, he traveled to Russia and, for reasons unexplained, has not been able to return. Following a landslide on the property in 2006, Sorokine entered into a construction contract with Design Built Systems to design and build a series of retaining walls. DBS was also retained to remedy a stop work notice issued by the City of San Rafael following work performed by others. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Federal Judge Refuses to Limit Coverage and Moves Forward with Policyholder’s Claims Against Insurer and Broker

    December 07, 2020 —
    On November 10, 2020, a New York federal judge dismissed an insurer’s counterclaims seeking to cap its exposure under a $15 million sublimit and an order estopping the policyholder from pursuing any additional amounts. In February 2017, Plaintiff Pilkington North America, Inc. (Pilkington), suffered between $60 and $100 million in damage from a tornado that struck its glass manufacturing factory in Illinois. Pilkington sought coverage for its loss under a commercial property and business interruption policy issued by Defendant Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company (MSI). Pilkington also claimed its insurance broker, Aon Risk Services Central, Inc. (Aon), is liable for faulty advice provided while brokering the policy. Aon’s negligence allegedly gave way to MSI’s fraudulent revision of the insurance policy, which caused the losses from the tornado to not be fully compensable. Pilkington’s fraud and faulty brokering claims stem from MSI’s revision of an endorsement contained in the policy. The revision changed the wording of a windstorm sublimit. Allegedly, Aon was informed by MSI of the changes and failed to inform Pilkington that the revision would substantially reduce coverage for windstorms, including tornados. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
    Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com