BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineers
    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


    ASBCA Validates New Type of Claim Related to Unfavorable CPARS Review [i]

    SIGAR Report Finds +$15 Billion in “Waste, Fraud and Abuse” in Afghanistan

    Coverage Exists for Landlord as Additional Insured

    Miami's Condo Craze Burns Out on Strong Dollar

    Neighbors Fight to Halt Construction after Asbestos found on Property

    Tenants Who Negligently Cause Fires in Florida Beware: You May Be Liable to the Landlord’s Insurer

    Industry Standard and Sole Negligence Defenses Can’t Fix a Defect

    Largest US Dam Removal Stirs Debate Over Coveted West Water

    Augmenting BIM Classifications – Interview with Eveliina Vesalainen of Granlund

    Guessing as to your Construction Damages is Not the Best Approach

    Can I Record a Lis Pendens in Arizona if the Lawsuit is filed Another Jurisdiction?

    Heathrow Tempts Runway Opponents With $1,200 Christmas Sweetener

    Important Environmental Insurance Ruling Issued In Protracted Insurance-Coverage Dispute

    Almost Nothing Is Impossible

    White House Seeks $310M To Fix Critical San Diego Wastewater Plant

    UK Agency Seeks Stricter Punishments for Illegal Wastewater Discharges

    Workers Compensation Immunity and the Intentional Tort Exception

    Builder and County Tussle over Unfinished Homes

    Amada Family Limited Partnership v. Pomeroy: Colorado Court of Appeals Expressly Affirms the Continuing Viability of the Common-Law After-Acquired Title Doctrine and Expressly Recognizes Utility Easements by Necessity

    Pennsylvania “occurrence”

    Final Furnishing Date is a Question of Fact

    Home Builders and Developers Beware: SC Supreme Court Beats Up Hybrid Arbitration Clauses Mercilessly

    Condo Board Goes after Insurer for Construction Defect Settlement

    Collapse of Underground Storage Cave Not Covered

    AB 3018: Amendments to the Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements on California Public Projects

    Think Before you Execute that Release – the Language in the Release Matters!

    Michael Baker Intl. Settles Federal Pay Bias Allegations

    Record Keeping—the Devil’s in the Details

    California Plant Would Convert Wood Waste Into Hydrogen Fuel

    U.S. Codes for Deck Attachment

    Insurer Must Defend and Indemnify Construction Defect Claims Under Iowa Law

    How to Build a Coronavirus Hospital in Ten Days

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-for-Delay Clause

    Wait, You Want An HOA?! Restricting Implied Common-Interest Communities

    Insurer Fails to Establish Prejudice Due to Late Notice

    What You Need to Know About Home Improvement Contracts

    Haight Attorneys Selected to 2018 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Arbitration—No Opportunity for Appeal

    Construction Defect Attorneys Call for Better Funding of Court System

    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    Contractors: Beware the Subordination Clause

    U.K. to Set Out Plan for Fire-Risk Apartment Cladding Crisis

    Power Point Presentation on Nautilus v. Lexington Case

    Pandemic-Related Construction Materials Pricing Poses Challenges in Construction Lawsuits

    Health Officials Concerned About Lead-Tainted Dust Created by Detroit Home Demolitions

    City in Ohio Sues Over Alleged Roof Defects

    Solar Energy Isn’t Always Green

    Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement

    New York Public Library’s “Most Comprehensive Renovation” In Its History

    A Brief Primer on Perfecting Your Mechanics Lien When the Property Owner Files Bankruptcy
    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

    Louisiana Couple Claims Hurricane Revealed Construction Defects

    January 22, 2013 —
    A Louisiana couple has sued the company that raised their home, claiming that faults with the work were revealed after Hurricane Isaac hit the home. Crescent City Construction raised the Marcev’s home in 2006. They were satisfied with the work until the 2012 hurricane. The Marcevs claim in their suit that the work is covered by a ten-year warranty. They are suing for a full refund of their payments to Crescent City Construction, as well as architectural fees, damages, interest, and attorney costs. Their claim is that as a result of the work, their home now has structural defects and fails to meet building codes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hawaii Federal District Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement on Volcano Damage

    September 13, 2021 —
    The federal district court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement reached on behalf of insureds who suffered property damage due to the 2018 Kilauea eruption on the Big Island. Aquilina v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152614 (D. Haw. Aug. 13, 2021). After destruction of their homes due to lava flow, plaintiffs sued various insurers and agents as a putative class action. Plaintiffs claimed they purchased surplus lines policies brokered and underwritten by various defendants. The policies each contained an exclusion for the peril of lava flow, which plaintiffs claimed rendered them worthless or unsuitable given that their properties were located in a high-risk lava zone. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants breached obligations under the Hawaii Surplus Lines Act, which required that surplus lines insurers conduct a diligent search for other available coverage before placing a homeowner with surplus lines coverage. Plaintiffs alleged defendants should have advised them of the availability of lava-damage coverage through the Hawaii Property Insurance Association (HPIA), a statutorily created association of admitted insurers established in part in response to Kilauea's eruption patterns, which made the private insurance market less likely to Insure certain high-risk areas. 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

    Determination That Title Insurer Did Not Act in Bad Faith Vacated and Remanded

    March 30, 2016 —
    In an important decision regarding bad faith and the application of the work product doctrine to work performed by an insurer's in-house counsel, the Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the Intermediate Court of Appeals's upholding the trial court's award of summary judgment to a title insurer on the issue of bad faith. Anastasi v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 2016 Haw. LEXIS 30 (Feb. 4. 2016). Llyod Anastasi loaned Alajos Nagy $2.4 million. The loan was secured by a mortgage on property. After Nagy executed the $2.4 million mortgage, a warranty deed was signed by Paul Stickney and purported to deed the property from Stickney to Nagy in exchange for $10 in consideration. Fidelity issued Anastasi a title insurance policy on the property in the amount of $2.4 million. The policy promised to provide a defense where a third party asserted a claims adverse to the interest of the insured. 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

    Vinci Will Build $580M Calgary Project To Avoid Epic Flood Repeat

    June 20, 2022 —
    Vinci Construction has begun work on a giant flood control project in Alberta designed to prevent a repeat of one of the most devastating natural disasters in Canadian history. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Teaming Agreements- A Contract to Pursue a Solicitation and Negotiate

    November 23, 2020 —
    Teaming agreements are practical and useful agreements on public projects where a prime contractor teams with a subcontractor for purposes of submitting a bid or proposal in response to a solicitation. The prime contractor and subcontractor work together to pursue that solicitation and have the government award the contract to the prime contractor. The teaming agreement allows for information to be confidentially shared (estimating and pricing, construction methodologies, systems, and suggestions, value engineering, etc.) where the subcontractor agrees that it will only pursue the solicitation with the prime contractor. In other words, the subcontractor ideally is not going to submit pricing to another prime contractor proposing or bidding on the same project and is not going to share information the prime contractor has furnished to it. Likewise, the prime contractor is not going to use the subcontractor’s information for purposes of finding another subcontractor at a lower price and is agreeing to use its good faith efforts or best attempts to enter into a subcontract with the subcontractor if it is awarded the project. This is all memorialized in the teaming agreement. The potential problem lies with language that requires the parties to use their good faith efforts or best attempts to enter into a subcontract if the project is awarded to the prime contractor. In essence, this can become a disfavored “agreement to agree” to a future contract that could allow either party to create an argument to back out of the deal under the auspice that they could not come to terms with the subcontract. 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

    Hunton Insurance Recovery Lawyers Ranked by Chambers as Top Insurance Practitioners

    May 27, 2019 —
    Hunton Andrews Kurth insurance recovery partner, Lorie Masters, received a top “Band 1” ranking by Chambers and Partners in the Insurance: Policyholder category for the District of Columbia, and a “Band 2” ranking in the Insurance: Dispute Resolution: Policyholder – USA – Nationwide category. Hunton Andrews Kurth insurance recovery associate, Andrea DeField, also was recognized by Chambers in the Associate to Watch: Insurance: Florida category. 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

    Deadly Fire in Older Hawaii High-Rise Causes Sprinkler Law Discussion

    July 19, 2017 —
    Last Friday, at least three people died and twelve were injured during a fire at a Honolulu high-rise that did not have sprinklers, according to CBS News. The fire began on the 26th floor and spread to at least the 28th floor and several units, the Honolulu Fire Department spokesman, Captain David Jenkins, stated. “Without a doubt if there were sprinklers in this apartment, the fire would be contained to the unit of origin,” Captain Jenkins concluded, as reported by CBS News. The Marco Polo development “was built four years before Honolulu required fire sprinkler systems in new residential high-rises,” the LA Times reported. “In 2005, the Honolulu City Council created a task force to estimate the cost of retrofitting and installing fire sprinkler systems in about 300 residential condominium buildings. A report estimated that retrofitting the Marco Polo would cost $4,305.55 for each unit.” A separate report estimated the cost would be $4.5 million to retrofit the entire building. According to Samuel Dannway, chief fire protection engineer for Coffman Engineers in Honoloulu, stated that the owners “lobbied strongly against any retrofitting” due to cost. Retrofitting sprinklers is more challenging in residential high-rises than office buildings, Glenn Corbett, associate professor of fire science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York told the LA Times. “Wall after wall, you have to penetrate with piping, and that means moving people around in apartments,” Corbett said. “They can’t live there while workers are drilling holes in their walls.” Mayor Kirk Caldwell stated that Honolulu “needs to look at passing a new law requiring sprinklers in older high-rises.” Read the full story, CBS News... Read the full story, LA Times... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    It's a Wrap! Enforcing Online Agreements in Light of the CPRA

    March 08, 2021 —
    We're all familiar with it at this point. A popup comes up on your device informing you of a change to terms and conditions, or otherwise asking for permission. For those operating websites, they know that this inconvenience is required to comply with various legal requirements. What they may not be aware of yet, is that these requirements, and popups, are about to become much, much, more prevalent. Recently, the California Privacy Rights Act ("CPRA"), passed by the voters of the State of California, includes new language specifying how consent is supposed to be obtained for the collection of personal information, amending the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA"). This new manner of consent rules out browsewrap agreements, and would require that popups increase as website operators shift focus to clickwrap agreements, if they have not already. Browsewrap and Clickwrap Typically, online agreements comprising Terms of Service or a Privacy Policy can be broken into either (a) browsewrap agreements - agreements that imply assent or agreement to online terms by the mere act of using a website or an online service after a clear and conspicuous notice that terms exist or (b) clickwrap agreements - agreements that show assent or agreement to online terms by having an individual click or otherwise agree to. While the best option to ensure enforceability is always the one that leaves the most documented signs of assenting to terms (i.e. a clickwrap agreement), both are typically recognized and enforced under California law. The practical effect of this is that to get consent, all that is technically needed is either to (a) show actual consent by having the person click on an "I agree" button, or (b) provide that the website visitor had ample notice that terms existed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer Dillion
    Mr. Janecek may be contacted at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com