BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect 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


    BWB&O Senior Associate Kyle Riddles and Associate Alexandria Heins Obtain a Trial Victory in a Multi-Million Dollar Case!

    Can a Lease Force a Tenant's Insurer to Defend the Landlord?

    CA Supreme Court Expands Scope of Lawyers’ Statute of Limitations to Non-Legal Malpractice Claims – Confusion Predicted for Law and Motion Judges

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds that Subrogation Waiver Does Not Violate Statute Prohibiting Limitation on Tort Liability in Construction Contracts

    Contractor Allegedly Stole Construction Materials

    CFTC Establishes Climate-Risk Unit, Echoing Other Biden Administration Agency Themes

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (08/08/23) – Buy and Sell With AI, Urban Real Estate Demand and Increasing Energy Costs

    Avoiding Disaster Due to Improper Licensing

    Insurance Policy Language Really Does Matter

    Shaken? Stirred? A Primer on License Bond Claims in California

    Real Estate Trends: Looking Ahead to 2021

    Utility Contractor Held Responsible for Damaged Underground Electrical Line

    Mechanics Lien Release Bond – What Happens Now? What exactly is a Mechanics Lien and Why Might it Need to be Released?

    EPA Announces Decision to Retain Current Position on RCRA Regulation of Oil and Gas Production Wastes

    The Impact of the IIJA and Amended Buy American Act on the Construction Industry

    A Termination for Convenience Is Not a Termination for Default

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

    Jean Nouvel’s NYC ‘Vision Machine’ Sued Over Construction Defects

    Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

    Firm Pays $8.4M to Settle Hurricane Restoration Contract Case

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    Who's Who Legal Recognizes Two White and Williams Lawyers as Thought/Global Leaders in Insurance and Reinsurance

    The Construction Project is Late—Allocation of Delay

    SAFETY Act Part II: Levels of Protection

    Construction Defect Lawsuits Hinted for Dublin, California

    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

    “Since You Asked. . .”

    Notes from the Nordic Smart Building Convention

    BWB&O is Recognized in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®!

    The Preservation Maze

    Virginia Tech Has Its Own Construction Boom

    Meet Your Future Team Members: AI Agents

    New Pedestrian, Utility Bridge Takes Shape on Everett Waterfront

    Motion to Dismiss COVID Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part

    40 Year Anniversary – Congratulations Ed Doernberger

    New Home Sales Slip, but Still Strong

    Pollution Exclusion Found Ambiguous

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    Axa Buys London Pinnacle Site for Redesigned Skyscraper

    California’s Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements: Public Works and AB 3018, What You Need to Know

    ASCE Statement on Congress Passage of WRDA 2024

    Water Backup Payment Satisfies Insurer's Obligation to Cover for Rain Damage

    Caterpillar Forecast Tops Estimates as Construction Recovers

    Courthouse Reporter Series: The Travails of Statutory Construction...Defining “Labor” under the Miller Act

    Moving Toward a Telework Future: A Checklist of Considerations for Employers

    Illinois Court Determines Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    AB 1701 Has Passed – Developers and General Contractors Are Now Required to Double Pay for Labor Due to Their Subcontractors’ Failure to Pay

    Contractor Succeeds At the Supreme Court Against Public Owner – Obtaining Fee Award and Determination The City Acted In Bad Faith

    Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes

    New EPA Regulation for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments
    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

    Fifth Circuit Confirms: Insurer Must Defend Despite Your Work/Your Product Exclusion

    February 14, 2022 —
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently confirmed that liability insurers have a duty to defend their insureds in construction defect cases when the underlying complaint alleges damage to property beyond the product and work of the insured – even if the complaint merely implies that the insured seeks such damage, without explicitly alleging so. Siplast, Incorporated v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, No. 20-11076, 2022 WL 99303 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022). The Archdiocese of New York replaced the roof over Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx, using a roofing membrane manufactured by Siplast, Inc. (“Siplast”). After a rainstorm a few years later, school officials reported water damage to the ceiling tiles throughout the school, and repair attempts only made the leaking worse. Siplast disputed that the leaks were its fault and refused to replace the roof, so the Archdiocese sued. Reprinted courtesy of Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Coverage Exists for Landlord as Additional Insured

    September 03, 2014 —
    The Indiana Court of Appeals determined the landlord was entitled to coverage as an additional insured under the tenant's policy. Selective Ins. Co. v. Erie Ins. Exch., 2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 365 (Ind. Ct. App. July 30, 2014). Rangeline, LLC owned a warehouse. Rangeline negotiated a lease with Hammons Storage to store insulation manufactured by Knauf Insulation. Pursuant to requirements in the lease, Hammons secured liability coverage with Erie Insurance naming Rangeline as an additional insured. After Hammons moved insulation into the warehouse for storage, the pipes of the sprinkler system burst, causing damage to the insulation. The cause of the loss was determined to be water from the system freezing, which led to the cast iron fittings cracking, causing the failure of the sprinkler heads. 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

    Turkey Digs Out From a Catastrophe

    April 18, 2023 —
    In what’s left of Antakya, a once-thriving and cosmopolitan tourist destination in the southeastern edge of Turkey, the streets seem weirdly quiet. Buildings stand askew at odd angles or are completely toppled, and the rubble from the homes of people who lived inside of them is neatly collected into piles and mounds. Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Surveys: Hundreds of Design Professionals See Big COVID-19 Business Impacts

    April 27, 2020 —
    As more states, counties and cities call on non-essential businesses to shut down to help ease the effects of the coronavirus pandemic, design professionals already see major workload impacts from the economic slowdown, according to three new association surveys of members and one of CEOs by a financial consulting firm. Reprinted courtesy of Bruce Buckley, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Shifting the Risk of Delay by Having Float Go Your Way

    July 05, 2021 —
    Critical path delay plays a central role in allocating responsibility for project delay. The interrelated concept of concurrency is also frequently determinative of entitlement on a range of claims including by owners for liquidated damages and by contractors for delay damages. What constitutes critical/concurrent delay, however, is hotly debated by scheduling experts. The lack of real consensus regarding how critical/concurrent delay should be determined and analyzed has created significant uncertainty in scheduling disputes. Indeed, courts have adopted differing and at times conflicting theories of concurrency that can produce divergent outcomes for the parties. In an effort to reduce uncertainty, stakeholders have increasingly adopted specialized contractual provisions and scheduling techniques which have significant implications for the evaluation of the companion concepts of criticality and concurrency. One such mechanism is float sequestration. Regardless of whether float sequestration is ultimately in the construction industry’s broader interest, stakeholders must be able to recognize its use and appreciate the implications for delay disputes on their projects. Simply defined, float is the number of days an activity can be delayed before affecting the project’s critical path (i.e., the longest chain of activities which determines the project’s minimal duration). Typically, only delays affecting the critical path can produce concurrent delay. Consequently, the concept of float is integral to understanding and resolving issues of both criticality and concurrency. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher J. Brasco, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP and Matthew D. Baker, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP Mr. Brasco may be contacted at cbrasco@watttieder.com Mr. Baker may be contacted at mbaker@watttieder.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Chattanooga Bridge Collapse Likely Resulted From Impact

    April 17, 2019 —
    Tennessee highway officials believe an impact from a vehicle’s oversized load is likely to blame for the April 1 partial collapse of a ramp structure at the I-75/I-24 interchange in Chattanooga. The impact caused the outer box beam and railing of the 148-ft-long bridge’s nearly 51-ft main span to fall onto an access ramp, injuring a motorist whose vehicle collided with the debris. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    The Sounds of Silence: Pennsylvania’s Sutton Rule

    January 29, 2024 —
    In Westminster Am. Ins. Co. a/s/o Androulla M. Toffalli v. Bond, No. 538 EDA 2023, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 626, 2023 PA Super 272, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Appellate Court) recently discussed the impact of silence on the Sutton Rule with respect to the landlord, Androulla M. Toffalli (Landlord), securing insurance. After holding that the tenant, Amy S. Bond (Bond) t/a Blondie’s Salon – who leased both commercial and residential space in the building pursuant to written leases – was not an implied “co-insured” on Landlord’s insurance policy, the Appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial court. In this case, Bond rented the ground floor of a property located in Monroe County pursuant to a written commercial lease (Commercial Lease) and operated Blondie’s salon out of the leased location. In addition, Bond rented and lived in a second-floor apartment pursuant to a residential lease (Residential Lease). Both leases required the tenants (Tenants) to obtain insurance for personal items. The leases, however, did not require Landlord to obtain fire insurance for the property. 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

    Claim Against Broker for Failure to Procure Adequate Coverage Survives Summary Judgment

    April 15, 2014 —
    The broker's motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss negligence claims for failure to obtain adequate coverage, was denied by the court in Voss v. The Netherlands Ins. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 384 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2014). The insured met with a representative of CH Insurance Brokerage Services Co., Inc. (CHI) to discuss coverage for the premises and her two companies. At CHI's request, the insured shared information on sales figures for calculating business interruption coverage. The broker represented that CHI would reassess and revisit the coverage needs as her business grew. CHI recommended $75,000 per incident in coverage for business interruption losses. The insured questioned whether the $75,000 limit was adequate, but the broker assured her that it was sufficient. The insured then accepted the recommendation. Subsequently, the insured's business grew, but CHI renewed the policy with the same $75,000 business interruption limit. 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