BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut construction claims 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


    Can General Contractors Make Subcontractors Pay for OSHA Violations?

    Advice to Georgia Homeowners with Construction Defects

    North Carolina Court Rules In Favor Of All Sums

    When Cyber Crooks Steal Payments, Think Insurance Makes Up The Loss? Think Again.

    Grupo Mexico Spill Sparks Public Scrutiny of $150 Million Mop-Up

    Home Builders Wear Many Hats

    2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar – Recap

    2021 California Construction Law Update

    Avoid Drowning in Data: Keep Afloat with ESI in Construction Litigation

    Saving Manhattan: Agencies, Consultants, Contractors Join Fight to Keep New York City Above Water

    SB800 CONFIRMED AS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS

    President Trump Nullifies “Volks Rule” Regarding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Recordkeeping Requirements

    Claims for Breach of Express Indemnity Clauses Subject to 10-Year Statute of Limitations

    Contract Change # 10: Differing Site Conditions (law note)

    Settlement Agreement? It Ain’t Over ‘Til it’s . . . Final, in Writing, Fully Executed, and Admissible

    Contracts and Fraud Don’t Mix (Even for Lawyers!)

    Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes Six Partners and Three Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    "On Second Thought"

    Construction Group Seeks Defense Coverage for Hard Rock Stadium Claims

    California Ballot Initiative Seeks to Repeal Infrastructure Funding Bill

    Architecture, Robotics, and the Importance of Human Interaction – An Interview with Prof. Kathrin Dörfler

    Discussion of the Discovery Rule and Tolling Statute of Limitations

    Building 47 Bridges in Two Years

    U.S. Building Permits Soared to Their Highest Level in Nearly Eight Years

    Combating Climate Change by Reducing Embodied Energy in the Built Environment

    Code Changes Pave Way for CLT in Tall Buildings and Spark Flammability Debate

    Rhode Island Closes One Bridge and May Have Burned Others with Ensuing Lawsuit

    Business Interruption, Food Spoilage Claims Resulting from Off Premise Power Failure Denied

    The Best Laid Plans: Contingency in a Construction Contract

    Deterioration Known To Insured Forecloses Collapse Coverage

    Minnesota Addresses How Its Construction Statute of Repose Applies to Condominiums

    A UK Bridge That Is a Lesson on How to Build Infrastructure

    Everyone’s Working From Home Due to the Coronavirus – Is There Insurance Coverage for a Data Breach?

    Arbitration: For Whom the Statute of Limitations Does Not Toll in Pennsylvania

    BWBO Celebrating Attorney Award and Two New Partners

    Risky Business: Contractual Versus Equitable Rights of Subrogation

    Insurers' Motion to Knock Out Bad Faith, Negligent Misrepresentation Claims in Construction Defect Case Denied

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

    How Algorithmic Design Improves Collaboration in Building Design

    Reminder: Quantum Meruit and Breach of Construction Contract Don’t Mix

    Supreme Court of Idaho Rules That Substantial Compliance With the Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act Suffices to Bring Suit

    Montana Supreme Court Tackles Decade-Old Coverage Dispute Concerning Asbestos Mineworker Claims

    Construction News Roundup

    Florida “get to” costs do not constitute damages because of “property damage”

    New Megablimp to Deliver to Remote Alaskan Construction Sites

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/17/23) – A Flop in Flipping, Plastic Microbes and Psychological Hard Hats

    Sierra Pacific v. Bradbury Goes Unchallenged: Colorado’s Six-Year Statute of Repose Begins When a Subcontractor’s Scope of Work Ends

    NJ Condo Construction Defect Case Dismissed over Statute of Limitations

    In Personal Injury Actions, Prejudgment Interest on Costs Not Recoverable

    Women Make Slow Entry into Building Trades
    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

    New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

    May 17, 2021 —
    The New York State Assembly is considering A07285, which creates a private right of action for bad faith “if the insurer unreasonably refuses to pay or unreasonably delays payment without substantial justification.” The bill was first introduced in 2013 but was reintroduced on May 3, 2021 and has received some recent attention. According to the bill, an insurer acts unreasonably when it (among other things):
    1. Fails to provide the claimant with accurate information regarding policy provisions relating to the coverage at issue; or
    2. Fails to effectuate in good faith a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim or portion of a claim and where the insurer failed to reasonably accord at least equal or more favorable consideration to its insured's interests as it did to its own interests, and thereby exposed the insured to a judgment in excess of the policy limits or caused other damage to a claimant; or
    3. Fails to provide a timely written denial of a claimant's claim, or portion thereof, with a full and complete explanation of such denial, including references to specific policy provisions wherever possible; or
    Reprinted courtesy of Copernicus T. Gaza, Traub Lieberman, Adam Krauss, Traub Lieberman, Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman, Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman and Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman Mr. Gaza may be contacted at cgaza@tlsslaw.com Mr. Krauss may be contacted at akrauss@tlsslaw.com Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Mr Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Protect Projects From Higher Repair Costs and Property Damage

    March 04, 2024 —
    Every aspect of a jobsite costs more today, from materials and labor to tools and equipment. Take construction input costs for example. While relatively flat in 2023, they remain almost 40% higher than they were pre-pandemic. With borrowing costs still high in the face of a stubbornly strong economy, project financing will remain a challenge. Still, contractors are expected to break more ground in 2024, fueled in part by the CHIPS Act, the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Despite wages growing and the labor market remaining tight, many businesses are expected to dive deeper into their backlogs. Meanwhile, the economy is expected to grow with a chance for a short and mild recession. As industry leaders gauge economic pressures, it’s clear businesses must manage their costs—and financial risks in 2024. It’s a year where insurance and safety should take priority. Below are economic trends to monitor, and insurance strategies to help protect this year’s bottom line. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Teng, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Denies Insured's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Seeking to Compel Appraisal

    March 13, 2023 —
    The court denied the insured's motion to dismiss after the insurer filed suit to compel an appraisal. Allied Trust Ins. Co. v. Tsang, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 352 (E.D. La. Jan. 3, 2023). The insureds reported damage to their property arising from Hurricane Ida. The insurer, Allied Trust, investigated and determined that the covered damage was $1,978.18, which was less that the policy's deductible. The insureds estimated that the covered damage was $135,270.78. Allied Trust invoked the appraisal provision. Allied Trust later filed suit alleging the insureds failed to comply and participate in the appraisal. The insureds moved to dismiss the complaint as moot. In their motion, the insureds argued that because they were now complying with the appraisal clause, all relief sought by Allied Trust had either already occurred or was currently underway. 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

    Reasonableness of Liquidated Damages Determined at Time of Contract (or, You Can’t Look Back Again)

    October 05, 2020 —
    I’ve discussed the continuing litigation between White Oak Power Constructors v. Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Americas, Inc. previously here at Construction Law Musings because the case was another reminder that your construction contract terms matter and will be interpreted strictly here in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The prior opinion in this case from the Eastern District of Virginia court the Court considered the applicability of a liquidated damages provision. In the latest opinion from the Court (PDF) the Court looked at when and how any liquidated damages would be calculated. In its June 22, 2020 opinion, the Court put the issue as follows:
    White Oak’s motion for partial summary judgment presents a narrow issue: whether courts may consider the damages actually sustained by a party as a result of a contract breach when deciding if liquidated damages required by a contract “grossly exceed” a party’s actual damages.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    U.S. Steel Invoking Carnegie’s Legacy in Revival Strategy

    July 23, 2014 —
    In March 2013, Mario Longhi lobbed an unexpected question into a roomful of 150 U.S. Steel Corp. managers: Who here would buy the company’s stock, tomorrow? He gave them three seconds, and “only a few reacted in that time frame positively,” Longhi said. Since that meeting, Longhi has been promoted to chief executive officer, and nine months into his tenure he’s closed one plant permanently, two more are temporarily idled and he’s planning to overhaul another. It’s all part of his plan to transform the 144-year-old company into a lean, modern steel producer. Investors are taking note, with the shares up 53 percent since he took over. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sonja Elmquist, Bloomberg
    Ms. Elmquist may be contacted at selmquist1@bloomberg.net

    ASCE Statement on Congress Passage of National Debt Limit Suspension

    June 12, 2023 —
    The following is a statement by Tom Smith, Executive Director, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): WASHINGTON, D.C. – The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) applauds Congress for passing a measure to avoid a U.S. debt default while safeguarding the critical funding allotments for our nation's infrastructure from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The bipartisan Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (H.R. 3746) will not only protect funding from the IIJA, but it also takes steps to advance permitting reform, a major priority for ASCE and the civil engineering community. Streamlining permitting is crucial to ensuring we make the most of available funding mechanisms. ASCE is pleased to see that many elements of the BUILDER Act made it into the debt ceiling suspension, including setting deadlines for environmental reviews and providing clarity around permitting requirements. Although further actions are needed to streamline these processes, the Fiscal Responsibility Act is a crucial first step towards implementing much-needed permitting reform to keep valuable projects moving and bring benefits to communities across the country. ASCE once again applauds Congress and the Administration for taking these necessary steps to protect the U.S. economy and infrastructure systems. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Coverage For Construction Defect Under Illinois Law

    January 28, 2015 —
    The court followed precedent in Illinois and upheld the insurer's denial of coverage for construction defects that did not damage other property. Design Concrete Founds., Inc. v. Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co., 2014 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2684 (Ill Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2014). In 2005, the homeowners contracted with the general contractor to build a home. The general contractor hired Design to do the foundation work. Design performed its work in August 2005. After the work was completed, cracks formed in the foundation, allowing water to enter the basement and an inward shifting of the foundation. The homeowners sued the general contractor and Design. The complaint alleged that Design failed to build the foundation in a workmanlike manner, resulting in the development of cracks in the foundation. 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

    Massachusetts District Court Holds Contractors Are Not Additional Insureds on Developer’s Builder’s Risk Policy

    August 31, 2020 —
    In Factory Mut. Ins. Co. v. Skanska United States Bldg., No. 18-cv-11700-DLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95403 (Skanska), the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts considered whether contractors on a construction job were additional insureds on the developer’s builder’s risk insurance policy. After a water loss occurred during construction, the builder’s risk insurance carrier paid its named insured for the resultant damage, and subsequently filed a subrogation action against two contractors. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the anti-subrogation rule barred the carrier from subrogating against them because they were additional insureds on the policy. The court found that based on the particular language of the additional insured provision in the policy, the defendants were not additional insureds for purposes of the subrogation action. Skanska arose from property damage that occurred during a construction project where Novartis Corporation (Novartis) endeavored to construct a biomedical research building in Cambridge, Massachusetts and retained Skanska USA Building, Inc. (Skanska) as the general contractor. In turn, Skanksa hired J.C. Cannistraro, LLC (JCC) as a subcontractor. Novartis secured a builder’s risk insurance policy from Factory Mutual Insurance Company (Factory Mutual). The policy defined “Insured” as Novartis and its subsidiaries, partnerships and joint ventures that it controlled or owned. The policy included another provision, titled “Property Damage,” which stated that the policy “insures the interest of contractors and subcontractors in insured property… to the extent of the Insured’s legal liability for insured physical loss or damage to such property.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com