BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut soil failure 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


    Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Protecting the Integrity of Referral Sources under Florida Statute s. 542.335

    Small Airport to Grow with Tower

    Union THUGS Plead Guilty

    GRSM Attorneys Selected to 2024 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

    PFAS and the Challenge of Cleaning Up “Forever”

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

    A Good Examination of Fraud, Contract and Negligence Per Se

    Licensing Mistakes That Can Continue to Haunt You

    The Requirement to Post Collateral Under General Agreement of Indemnity Is Real

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

    Tender the Defense of a Lawsuit to your Liability Carrier

    Texas Construction Firm Officials Sentenced in Contract-Fraud Case

    OSHA Penalties—What Happened with International Nutrition

    For Breach of Contract Claim, There Needs to be a Breach of a Contractual Duty

    Contractor’s Burden When It Comes to Delay

    U.S. Homeownership Rate Rises for First Time in Two Years

    Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Act Violations

    Wall Street Is Buying Starter Homes to Quietly Become America’s Landlord

    Prime Contractor & Surety’s Recovery of Attorney’s Fees in Miller Act Lawsuit

    Chicago Developer and Trade Group Sue City Over Affordable Housing Requirements

    Civility Is Key in Construction Defect Mediation

    Final Furnishing Date is a Question of Fact

    No Retrofit without Repurposing in Los Angeles

    Subcontract Requiring Arbitration Outside of Florida

    Can Your Industry Benefit From Metaverse Technology?

    Account for the Imposition of Material Tariffs in your Construction Contract

    Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

    Toll Brothers Report End of Year Results

    Growing Optimism Among Home Builders

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

    Las Vegas Student Housing Developer Will Name Replacement Contractor

    Court Holds That Property Insurance Does Not Cover Economic Loss From Purchasing Counterfeit Vintage Wine

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    Study Finds Mansion Tax Reduced Sales in New York and New Jersey

    New Case Law Alert: Licensed General Contractors Cannot Sue Owners to Recover Funds for Work Performed by An Unlicensed Subcontractor

    Seeking the Urban Lifestyle in the Suburbs

    Tokyo Tackles Flood Control as Typhoons Swamp Subways

    Housing Advocacy Group Moved to Dissolve New Jersey's Council on Affordable Housing

    Is The Enforceability Of A No-Damage-For-Delay Provision Inappropriate For Summary Judgment

    New Households Moving to Apartments

    Deck Collapse Raises Questions about Building Defects

    Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner

    Court Holds That Insurance Producer Cannot Be Liable for Denial of COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

    Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks: The Spearin Doctrine and Design-Build Projects

    The Insurance Coverage Debate on Construction Defects Continues

    Commercial Real Estate Brokerages in an Uncertain Russian Market

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers®

    Vermont Supreme Court Reverses, Finding No Coverage for Collapse

    Athens, Ohio, Sues to Recover Nearly $722,000 After Cyber Attack

    Trial Victory in San Mateo County!
    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

    Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben Obtains Federal Second Circuit Affirmance of Summary Judgment in Insurer’s Favor

    April 10, 2023 —
    In the underlying action, a property owner hosting a motorcycle rally was sued after a motorcycle collided with an auto near the entrance to the premises, injuring the cyclists. The cyclists sued the property owner, among others, alleging failure to supervising traffic on the adjoining roadway. The property owner tendered the claim under its CGL policy, which was endorsed with an “absolute auto exclusion,” precluding coverage for claims “arising out of or resulting from the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any…auto.” The CGL insurer disclaimed coverage based on the endorsement. In the ensuing coverage litigation, Traub Lieberman represented the insurer, and moved for summary judgment arguing that the “absolute auto exclusion” was dispositive of coverage on the facts alleged, citing case law from New York state courts enforcing similar exclusions to preclude coverage for multi-vehicle accidents. The insured argued in opposition that the outcome should be controlled by Essex Insurance Company v. Grande Stone Quarry, LLC, 82 A.D.3d 1326, 918 N.Y.S.2d 238 (3rd Dep’t 2011), in which the court declined to apply such exclusion in the case of a single-vehicle accident caused by a dangerous condition of the insured’s premises. The federal district judge disagreed with the insured’s argument in this regard, granting Traub Lieberman’s motion for summary judgment in favor of the insurer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

    Maryland Contractor Documents its Illegal Deal and Pays $2.15 Million to Settle Fraud Claims

    January 07, 2015 —
    Why would a contractor create a contract for illegal work? I really don’t know. Late last year, the FBI announced that a Maryland contractor, Forrester Construction Company, agreed to pay $2.15 million dollars to resolve a criminal investigation into alleged fraud in connection with the use of disadvantaged business enterprises involving more than $145 million of District of Columbia government contracts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    South Carolina Supreme Court Asked Whether Attorney-Client Privilege Waived When Insurer Denies Bad Faith

    September 18, 2018 —
    The Fourth Circuit certified the following question to the South Carolina Supreme Court: Does South Carolina law support application of the "at issue" exception to the attorney-client privilege such that a party may waive the privilege by denying liability in its answer? In Re: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 17910 (4th Cir. June 28, 2018). Mt. Hawley insured Contravest Construction Company under an excess commercial liability policy from July 21, 2003 to July 21, 2007. During this period, Contravest constructed a development in South Carolina. In 2011, the Owners Association sued Contravest for alleged defective construction. Mt. Hawley denied tenders to defend or indemnify. Contravest ultimately settled the case. 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

    Sochi Construction Unlikely to be Completed by End of Olympic Games

    February 11, 2014 —
    As journalists and visitors descended upon Sochi, Russia for this winter’s Olympic Games, they reported “used linen, improper toilets, poor wiring, unclean water and loose fixtures” using the Twitter hash tag @SochiProblems, according to The International Business Times. Furthermore, it is doubtful that the construction work “in and around Sochi” will be completed by February 23rd—the official end of the games. The International Business Times article features photographs of various unfinished construction sites including an apartment building, hotels, a sports store, and other buildings. The Olympic opening ceremony took place on February 7th. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Spending Highest Since April 2009

    October 25, 2013 —
    The Commerce Department has announced that construction spending has increased by 0.6 percent, but that modest gain puts it at the highest it has been in four and a half years. The last time construction spending was this high was April 2009. The rise in construction spending is due to increases in both public and private construction project. Public construction was up, despite a decrease in spending by the federal government. Private residential construction is at a five-year high. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Product Liability Alert: Evidence of Apportionment of Fault Admissible in Strict Products Liability Action

    March 26, 2014 —
    In Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (No. B239761, filed March 17, 2014), the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that a trial court must permit a defendant, in a products liability action, to present evidence of apportionment of fault among settling and non-settling entities. The case involved an automobile collision in which the plaintiff was struck from behind, causing the driver’s seat to recline and propel plaintiff into the back seat where she struck her head. Plaintiff was left quadriplegic as a result. Plaintiff brought suit against the driver who caused the accident, the Nissan entities who manufactured the car plaintiff was driving, Johnson Controls, Inc. (“Johnson”), Ikeda Engineering Corporation (“Ikeda”), Vintec Co. (“Vintec”), and Autoliv ASP, Inc., who designed and manufactured the driver’s seat of the vehicle plaintiff was driving, and against Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. who manufactured the recliner mechanism of plaintiff’s vehicle’s front seat. Ikeda participated in the design of the driver’s seat and Vintec manufactured the driver’s seat. Johnson manufactured the seat belt for the driver’s seat of plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with Nissan’s design. Prior to trial, plaintiff settled with the defendant driver, the Nissan defendants, the Autoliv defendants, and Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. Plaintiff elected to proceed to trial solely on a cause of action for strict products liability against Ikeda and Vintec. Pursuant to a stipulation, Johnson agreed it would be legally responsible for damages awarded to plaintiff at trial based upon the actions of Vintec or Ikeda. At trial, the court precluded Vintec and Ikeda from offering evidence that: (1) plaintiff would not have been injured if her vehicle’s seat belt was designed in a different manner by Nissan; (2) Nissan chose the manufacturer of the recliner mechanism and required defendants to use that manufacturer and that part in the seat; and (3) The other defendants had already reached settlements with plaintiff. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Third Circuit Vacates Judgment for Insurer on Alleged Construction Defect Claim

    December 31, 2024 —
    The Third Circuit vacated and remanded to the district court the judgment in favor of the insurer on a construction defect claim. Odedeyi v. AmTrust Financial Services Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24729 (3d Cir. Oct. 1, 2024). Mr. Odedeyi hired a contractor, who was insured by Security National, to perform work on his property. After the property was damaged during the renovations, Odedeyi filed suit against the contractor. Odedeyi was awarded a default judgment against the contractor. 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

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    July 06, 2011 —

    The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a ruling in June on the case of Nevins v. Toll in which they reversed an earlier decision and remanded the case to a lower court for retrial. At issue in the case was the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, J. Anthony Dowling. In depositions, Mr. Dowling said that his estimates for repair were based on a “gut feeling.” Dowling said he had “very little” experience in cost estimates for single-family homes. The defendants sought to bar Dowling’s testimony which was granted by the judge. Without an expert, Ms. Nevin’s case was dismissed.

    Describing Dowling’s report as “far from a model of how an expert’s opinion in a construction case should be presented,” the court noted that Dowling is not a professional expert witness. However, the court did note that Dowling is a professional cost estimator. Despite Mr. Dowling using his “gut feeling” to construct his estimate, the New Jersey Supreme Court felt that whether his estimate is convincing is “a question for the jury.”

    Read the court’s opinion…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of