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


    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule

    Colorado Construction-Defects Reform Law Attempt Expected in 2015

    Fixing the Problem – Not the Blame

    Risk Management and Contracting after Hurricane Irma: Suggestions to Avoid a Second Disaster

    University of California Earthquake Report Provides List of Old Concrete Buildings in LA

    Consumer Confidence in U.S. Increases More Than Forecast

    4 Breakthrough Panama Canal Engineering Innovations

    Washington First State to Require Electric Heat Pumps

    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

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

    Homebuilding Held Back by Lack of Skilled Workers

    Aurora Joins other Colorado Cities by Adding a Construction Defect Ordinance

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives “Tier 1” Ranking by U.S. News and World Reports

    California Supreme Court Adopts Vertical Exhaustion for Long-Tail Claims

    Second Circuit Court Differentiates the Standard for Determining Evident Partiality for a Neutral Arbitrator and a Party-Appointed Arbitrator

    Cuba: Construction Boom Potential for U.S. Construction Companies and Equipment Manufacturers?

    Reasons to Be Skeptical About a Millennial Homebuying Boom in 2016

    Shea Homes CEO Receives Hearthstone Builder Humanitarian Award

    Recession Graduates’ Six-Year Gap in Homeownership

    What is a Personal Injury?

    Insurer’s Optional Appeals Process Does Not Toll Statute of Limitations Following Unequivocal Written Denial

    New Evidence Code Requires Attorney to Obtain Written Acknowledgement that the Confidential Nature of Mediation has been Disclosed to the Client

    ASCE Statement on Passage of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2022

    Travelers v. Larimer County and the Concept of Covered Cause of Loss

    Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Duty to Defend Group Builders Case

    Contractor Disputes Report Amid Amazon Warehouse Collapse Lawsuit

    Contract Terms Can Impact the Accrual Date For Florida’s Statute of Repose

    Update: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in West Virginia v. EPA

    Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract is Only as Good as Those Signing It

    Where Parched California Is Finding New Water Sources

    Virginia General Assembly Helps Construction Contractors

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/17/24) – Housing Inflation to Remain High, Proptech Investment to Fall and Office Vacancy Rates to Reach Peak in 2025

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    Business Risk Exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 Found Ambiguous

    John O’Meara is Selected as America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators

    Flood Policy Does Not Cover Debris Removal from Property

    Interior Designer Licensure

    Dear Engineer: Has your insurer issued a “Reservation of Rights” letter? (law note)

    Admissibility of Expert Opinions in Insurance Bad Faith Trials

    Facts about Chinese Drywall in Construction

    California Court Holds No Coverage Under Pollution Policy for Structural Improvements

    Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

    An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

    The Cost of Overlooking Jury Fees

    Connecticutt Class Action on Collapse Claims Faces Motion to Dismiss

    Ensuing Loss Provision Salvages Coverage for Water Damage Claim

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 2- Increase the Heat

    Potential Coverage Issues Implicated by the Champlain Towers Collapse

    Montana Trial Court Holds That Youths Have Standing to Bring Constitutional Claims Against State Government For Alleged Climate Change-Related Harms

    New York Court Narrowly Interprets “Expected or Intended Injury” Exclusion in Win for Policyholder
    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. Leveraging 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

    Don’t Put Yourself In The Position Of Defending Against An Accord And Satisfaction Defense

    October 10, 2022 —
    The doctrine of accord and satisfaction lives and breathes in disputes including construction disputes. Unfortunately, a contractor, in the case discussed below, found out the hard way after it cashed checks that were accompanied with a letter that clearly indicated the checks were final payment. Once those payments were cashed, there was no “buyer’s remorse” that would allow it to still pursue disputed amounts. Remember this the next time you accept and cash a payment that says on the check it is full and final payment OR is accompanied by a letter that makes clear the payment is full and final payment. If you cash it, there is no second bite out of the apple, so to speak. If you are not interested in the payment being full and final payment, return the check. If you are not sure, either return the check or inquire and get that response in writing. Don’t put yourself in the position of defending against an accord and satisfaction defense. Even without the doctrine of accord and satisfaction, the contract between the contractor and owner discussed below made clear that contractor’s acceptance of final payment meant that contractor was unconditionally waiving other claims against the owner, further reinforcing that there would be no second bite out of the apple. The morale:
    (1) read the letter that accompanies a check and do NOT cash a check that indicates it is for final payment unless you are prepared to accept that amount; and (2) read your contract to understand any contractual obligation that kicks-in with the acceptance of final payment.
    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

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

    October 29, 2014 —
    The number of contracts to buy existing homes rose less than forecast in September, signaling demand will probably plateau heading into the end of 2014. The pending home sales index increased 0.3 percent after dropping 1 percent in August, the National Association of Realtors said today in Washington. The median projection in a Bloomberg survey of economists called for a 1 percent gain. Home resales have yet to regain last year’s peak as still-tight credit and low inventories remain hurdles for the industry, which means residential real estate will make a limited contribution to the expansion. The recent drop in mortgage rates and pickup in hiring will probably help underpin demand, even as first-time buyers struggle to enter the market. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko, Bloomberg
    Ms. Jamrisko may be contacted at mjamrisko@bloomberg.net

    California Supreme Court Raises the Bar on Dangerous Conditions on Public Property Claims

    February 16, 2016 —
    Earlier we wrote about the affirmative defense of “design immunity” which can be used by public entities to shield themselves from personal injury claims dangerous conditions on public property. Under the design immunity doctrine a public entity can avoid liability for dangerous conditions on public property if it can show: 1.A causal relationship between the plan or design and the accident; 2.Discretionary approval of the plan or design prior to construction; and 3.Substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the plan or design. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

    Traub Lieberman Partners Dana Rice and Jason Taylor Obtain Summary Judgment For Insurance Carrier Client in Missouri Federal Court Coverage Action

    April 19, 2022 —
    Traub Lieberman Partners Dana Rice and Jason Taylor were recently successful in obtaining summary judgment for a national insurance carrier client in a federal court declaratory judgment action pending in Missouri. The underlying lawsuit involved two wrongful death actions brought against an insured responsible for performing demolition work on a freight elevator shaft as part of a larger demolition project. The two decedents were operating a motorized wire rope pulley inside the shaft when the system failed, causing the work basket occupied by the decedents to fall and resulting in fatal injuries to the workers. Two state court actions followed against the general contractor on the project, the insured, and various other product suppliers and manufacturers of the freight elevator equipment. The firm’s client issued commercial general liability insurance policy, which included an “Injury to Employees, Contractors, Volunteers and Other Workers” exclusion that precluded coverage for bodily injury to a broad variety of workers. As respects the insured, the underlying plaintiffs alleged that the decedent-workers were “employed by” the insured, such that the carrier argued the “Injury to Workers” exclusion barred coverage. The carrier filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri seeking a declaration that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured for the underlying state court actions under the exclusion, and moved for judgment on the pleadings. The carrier also claimed a related “Contractors and Subcontractors” exclusion barred coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Dana A. Rice, Traub Lieberman and Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman Mr. Rice may be contacted at drice@tlsslaw.com Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Crane Firm Pulled Off NYC Projects Following Multiple Incidents

    October 07, 2019 —
    Following a partial crane collapse at a site on Manhattan’s Lower East Side and a fatality in April on a jobsite in lower Manhattan, the New York City Dept. of Buildings announced on Aug. 12 that it is suspending United Crane & Rigging’s work on 21 construction sites across the city. Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    First Lumber, Now Drywall as Canada-U.S. Trade Tensions Escalate

    November 30, 2016 —
    A new trade dispute has broken out between Canada and the U.S. that threatens to raise prices in Canada’s already overheated housing markets. The Canada Border Services Agency imposed a provisional tariff as high as 277 percent on U.S. drywall imports in September after ruling that manufacturers were dumping the product, or selling it below the price in their home market, undercutting local suppliers. The tariff has raised the price of drywall, or gypsum board as it’s also called, by as much as 30 percent and is causing “chaos” and delays as contractors scramble for alternative sources. Some builders say the tariff could add as much as C$13,000 ($9,671) to the cost of a new home, which would amount to a C$2.6 billion increase to the roughly 200,000 homes built in Canada each year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Katie Dmitrieva, Bloomberg
    Ms. Dmitrieva may be followed on Twitter @katiadmi

    South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

    March 18, 2019 —
    In Lawrence v. General Panel Corp., 2019 S.C. LEXIS 1, No. 27856 (S.C. Jan. 1, 2019), the Supreme Court of South Carolina answered a certified question related to South Carolina’s statute of repose, S.C. Code § 15-3-640,[1] to wit, whether the date of “substantial completion of the improvement” is always measured from the date on which the certificate of occupancy is issued. The court held that a 2005 amendment to § 15-3-640 did not change South Carolina law with respect to the date of substantial completion. Thus, under the revised version of § 15-3-640, “the statute of repose begins to run at the latest on the date of the certificate of occupancy, even if there is ongoing work on any particular part of the project.” A brief review of prior case law may assist with understanding the court’s ruling in Lawrence. In Ocean Winds Corp. of Johns Island v. Lane, 556 S.E.2d 377 (S.C. 2001), the Supreme Court of South Carolina addressed the question of whether § 15-3-640 ran from substantial completion of the installation of the windows at issue or on substantial completion of the building as a whole. Citing § 15-3-630(b),[2] the court found that the windows “were ‘a specified area or portion’ of the larger condominium project” and, upon their incorporation into the larger project they could be used for the purpose for which they were intended. Thus, the court held that “the statute of repose began running when installation of the windows was complete.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

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

    April 03, 2019 —
    A recent decision issued by the Iowa Supreme Court, City of West Liberty, Iowa v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, highlights the importance for a policyholder to investigate a loss fully so that a wide range of evidence can be gathered and presented to show why there is coverage. The facts of City of West Liberty are a little unusual, but its lesson is not limited to Iowa insurance law; the issues litigated in this case show the value of investigating what caused a loss regardless of whether the loss occurred in California, Iowa, or elsewhere. Background on the Case City of West Liberty involved an insurance coverage dispute between a municipality owned electrical power plant and its insurance company. The dispute arose from a single adventurous squirrel who climbed onto an outdoor electrical transformer, touching two different parts of the power plant: a portion of the steel frame and a bare cable clamp. In doing so, the squirrel created a “conductive path,” in the words of the Iowa Supreme Court, between the high voltage clamp and the grounded frame. The path, once created, caused significant damage to the transformer and other electrical equipment at the city’s power plant. The city submitted a claim for the resulting damage, but the insurance company denied it. The insurer denied based on an exclusion in the insurance policy for property damage “caused by arcing or by electrical currents other than lightning.” According to the insurance company, the squirrel had no role in causing the damage; all of the damage resulted from arcing, which was excluded from coverage. The ensuing lawsuit focused upon whether the squirrel had a role in causing the damage. If yes, then there would be coverage according to Iowa insurance law; when a loss results from two causes, one of which is covered and the other is not, then there is coverage if the loss occurs from the covered cause. Due to this legal standard, the city contended that, apart from the arcing causing any damage, the squirrel caused the damage too. Because the insurance policy provided protection against mischievous actions performed by squirrels, the city contended that it was entitled to coverage, even if the excluded arcing contributed to the same damage too. Unfortunately, for the city, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected that argument, finding instead that the property damage resulted only from the arcing, which was excluded from coverage. In reaching its conclusion, the court absolved the squirrel of any wrongdoing, finding that it did not cause any of the property damage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Graham C. Mills, Newmeyer & Dillion
    Mr. Mills may be contacted at graham.mills@ndlf.com