BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut defective construction expert
    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


    Matthew Graham Named to Best Lawyers in America

    Is Your Construction Business Feeling the Effects of the Final DBA Rule?

    Nondelegable Duties

    What To Do When the Government is Slow to Decide a Claim?

    Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC Announces Leadership Changes and New Vision for Growth

    St. Petersburg Florida’s Tallest Condo Tower Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    Independent Contractor v. Employee. The “ABC Test” Does Not Include a Threshold Hiring Entity Test

    Safety Officials Investigating Death From Fall

    Understanding Entitlement to Delays and Proper Support

    Henkels & McCoy Pays $1M in Federal Overtime-Pay Case

    Chinese Lead $92 Billion of U.S. Home Sales to Foreigners

    A Landlord’s Guide to California’s New Statewide Rent Control Laws

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 04/13/22

    3 Common Cash Flow Issues That Plague The Construction Industry

    Virtual Jury Trials of Construction Disputes: The Necessary Union of Both Sides of the Brain

    Negligent Failure to Respond to Settlement Offer Is Not Bad Faith

    A Termination for Convenience Is Not a Termination for Default

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

    Arizona Court Determines Statute of Limitations Applicable to a Claim for Reformation of a Deed of Trust (and a Related Claim for Declaratory Judgment)

    Endorsement to Insurance Policy Controls

    Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy

    The Most Expensive Apartment Listings in New York That Are Not in Manhattan

    Not Remotely Law as Usual: Don’t Settle for Delays – Settle at Remote Mediation

    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

    ABC, Via Construction Industry Safety Coalition, Comments on Silica Rule

    Employee or Independent Contractor? New Administrator’s Interpretation Issued by Department of Labor Provides Guidance

    Major Change to Residential Landlord Tenant Law

    The Expansion of Potential Liability of Construction Managers and Consultants

    How Mansions Can Intensify Wildfires

    Timber Prices Likely to Keep Rising

    L.A. Mixes Grit With Glitz in Downtown Revamp: Cities

    Insurers Must Defend Allegations of Faulty Workmanship

    NYC’s Next Hot Neighborhoods Targeted With Property Funds

    Third Circuit Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Despite Insured’s Expectations

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Rated as One of the Top 50 in a Survey of Construction Law Firms in the United States

    Welcome to SubTropolis: The Massive Business Complex Buried Under Kansas City

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

    Recycling Our Cities, One Building at a Time

    New Executive Order: Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All

    EPC Contractors Procuring from Foreign Companies need to Reconsider their Contracts

    Beam Fracture on Closed Mississippi River Bridge Is at Least Two Years Old

    Common Law Indemnification - A Primer

    Trump, Infrastructure and the Construction Industry

    Could You Be More Specific . . . About My Excess AI Coverage?

    A Few Construction Related Bills to Keep an Eye On in 2023 (UPDATED)

    Building Permits Hit Five-Year High

    The Architecture of Tomorrow Mimics Nature to Cool the Planet

    Better Building Rules Would Help U.K.'s Flooding Woes, CEP Says

    Nation’s Top Court Limits EPA's Authority in Clean Air Case

    Some Insurers Dismissed, Others Are Not in Claims for Faulty Workmanship
    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

    Better Building Rules Would Help U.K.'s Flooding Woes, CEP Says

    January 06, 2016 —
    Tighter construction restrictions and incentives to build outside flood-prone areas would minimize damage to the U.K. economy from heavy rain and rising water levels, according to the Centre for Economic Performance. Thousands of families across northern England and Scotland have evacuated their homes or been left without power in recent weeks, while KPMG LLP estimated the economic loss in December was more than 5 billion pounds ($7.3 billion). While low-lying areas are more likely to be hit by large-scale floods, businesses and homes don’t tend to move to safer locations, according to the CEP’s analysis of data from 2003 to 2008. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jill Ward, Bloomberg

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    August 27, 2014 —
    The homeowners' assigned claims against the general contractor's insurer were barred by business risk exclusions in the CGL policies. W. Heritage Ins. Co. v. Cannon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101382 (E.D. Wash. July 24, 2014). The Cannons contracted with Cook Custom Homes to build their home. Cook never hired a soil engineer. The lot was excavated and the basement foundation was back-filled. When the Cannons moved in, they noticed cracks throughout the foundation, basement slab, ceilings and driveway. The Cannons' home was rendered uninhabitable. The Cannons sued Cook. Cook agreed to a confession of judgment and assignment of its rights against Western Heritage, who defended Cook under a reservation of rights. Western Heritage filed an action for declaratory judgment. 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

    Update Coverage for Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    February 11, 2013 —
    Whether construction defect claims against an insured contractor or subcontractor are covered is undergoing an intense debate in Colorado that is reminiscent of the current coverage battle in Hawaii. Although I missed the case until recently, the decision in Colo. Pool Sys. v. Scottsdale Ins Co., 2012 Colo. App. LEXIS 1732 (Colo. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2012), appears to divert from a prior case from the Colorado Court of Appeals, Gen. Sec. Indem. Co. v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009). Gen. Security held that faulty workmanship, standing alone, was not an "accident." Gen. Security was heavily relied upon by the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals when it found construction defects arose from breach of contract and were not covered under a liability policy. See Group Builders v. Admiral Insurance Co., 123 Haw. 142, 231 P.3d 67 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010). In Colo. Pool Sys., Colorado Pool hired subcontractors to construct a poll's concrete shell. After the shell was poured, an inspection noticed that some re-bar was too close to the surface. The owner turned to its general contractor, White Construction Group, and demanded that the pool be removed and replaced. White turned to Colorado Pool, who notified its carrier, Scottsdale. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Providing Notice of Claims Under Your Construction Contract

    April 02, 2014 —
    Craig Martin on his blog Construction Contractor Advisor explained the importance of knowing when to provide notice under your construction contract: “Time and time again, courts rule that contractors must follow notice requirements in order to submit a claim for additional time or compensation.” Martin cited the case JEM Contracting v. Morrison-Maierle, where the contractor provided verbal notice of a claim to the engineer, but failed to submit in writing until eighteen days later, which was past the notice requirement as stated in the contract. The judge denied the contractor’s claim and sided with the engineer and county. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    #6 CDJ Topic: Construction Defect Legislative Developments

    December 30, 2015 —
    Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto, and David A. Napper of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger discussed Right to Repair developments occurring in Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and Colorado in their article, “Right to Repair Reform: Revisions and Proposals to State’s ‘Right to Repair Statutes.” Read the full story... Texas also had changes that affected construction defect claims, as covered by David H. Fisk of Coleman & Logan PC: “Before filing a lawsuit or initiating an arbitration proceeding pertaining to a construction defect, a condominium association in Texas with eight or more units must now comply with the newly added Section 82.119 to Chapter 82 of the Texas Property Code. This is in addition to compliance with the Texas Residential Construction Liability Act (RCLA) and any preconditions included in the condominium association’s declarations.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Safeguarding the U.S. Construction Industry from Unfair Competition Abroad

    November 07, 2022 —
    In April 2015, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued an exclusion order prohibiting the importation of certain foreign-made crawler cranes into the United States for a period of at least 10 years. That order was the result of a 20-month investigation by the ITC, initiated by a Wisconsin-based crane manufacturer based on allegations of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation by a China-based company. Defined by powerful injunctive remedies, unique rules, and a lightning-fast docket, the ITC can help protect American industry from unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States. This post explores the traits that make the ITC an attractive venue for potential complainants. ITC Site Plan The ITC is a specialized trade court located in Washington, D.C., that has broad authority to investigate and remedy unfair trade practices. One of the ITC’s primary functions is to conduct unfair import investigations, also known as “section 337” investigations, after the authorizing statute. A section 337 investigation can be instituted based on any number of unfair acts, including, but not limited to, patent infringement (utility and design), registered and common law trademark infringement, copyright infringement (including violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act), trade dress infringement, and trade secret misappropriation. Business torts such as passing off, false advertising, and tortious interference with business relations have also formed the bases of investigations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ric Macchiaroli, Pillsbury
    Mr. Macchiaroli may be contacted at ric.macchiaroli@pillsburylaw.com

    Fifth Circuit: Primary Insurer Relieved of Duty to Defend Without Release of Liability of Insured

    March 02, 2020 —
    In Aggreko, LLC v. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co.,1 the Fifth Circuit affirmed a decision by the Texas District Court and held that a Covenant Not to Execute constituted a “settlement” sufficient to exhaust policy limits and terminate a primary insurer’s duty to defend. This case arose out of a wrongful death suit filed by the parents of James Brenek II (“Brenek”). In 2014, Brenek was fatally electrocuted by an electrically energized generator housing cabinet while performing work on a rig in Texas for Guichard Operating Company, LLC (“Guichard”), a Louisiana-based drilling subcontractor. Guichard had leased the generator from Aggreko, LLC (“Aggreko”). A rental agreement between Guichard and Aggreko required Guichard to maintain commercial general liability insurance during the lease period and list Aggreko and the rig owner, Rutherford Oil Corporation (“Rutherford”), as additional insureds under the policy. Guichard’s primary insurance carrier, The Gray Insurance Company (“Gray”), agreed to defend and indemnify Aggreko and Rutherford in the wrongful death suit. The Gray policy had a limit of $1,000,000, subject to a $50,000 self-insured retention. Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Ashley McWilliams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com Ms. McWilliams may be contacted at amw@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review Regarding Necessary Parties in Lien Foreclosure Actions

    August 17, 2017 —
    For several years, the requirements for which parties must be named in a lien foreclosure action when a release of lien bond is in place have been cloudy. RCW 60.04 et seq., the “mechanics’ lien” or “construction lien” statute, provides protection for a party or person who provides labor, materials, or equipment to a construction project. That person or party, if not paid, can file a lien against the construction project property to secure recovery. As the lien impacts the property by “clouding title” and could potentially result in foreclosure of the property, the statute sets forth strict requirements with respect to timing, notice, and parties. For example, the lien must be recorded within 90 days of the person or party’s last day of work or materials or equipment supplied, and the lien claimant must then give a copy of the claim of lien to the owner or reputed owner within 14 days of the lien recording. RCW 60.04.081. The statute also allows a property owner or other party to “free” the property from the lien prior to the claim being resolved by issuing a release of lien bond. While the claim is still in dispute, the lien then attaches to the bond and not the property. The same rules about foreclosure, however, still apply but not without some confusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay K. Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com