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


    Former Hoboken, New Jersey Mayor Disbarred for Taking Bribes

    Bad News for Buyers: U.S. Mortgage Rates Hit Highest Since 2014

    Georgia Court Reaffirms Construction Defect Decision

    Google’s Biggest Moonshot Is Its Search for a Carbon-Free Future

    Is it the End of the Story for Redevelopment in California?

    Los Angeles Seeks Speedier Way to Build New Affordable Homes

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    Consider Short-Term Lease Workouts For Commercial Tenants

    Quick Note: Unenforceable Language in Arbitration Provision

    Montrose III: Vertical Exhaustion Applies in Upper Layers of Excess Coverage

    The Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Trial to Begin

    Hurricane Damage Not Covered for Home Owner Not Named in Policy

    That’s not the way we’ve always done it! (Why you should update your office practices)

    Construction Defect Lawsuits May Follow Hawaii Condo Boom

    Policy's Operation Classification Found Ambiguous

    United States Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in EEOC Subpoena Case

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

    Coverage, Bad Faith Upheld In Construction Defect Case

    When Business is Personal: Negligent and Intentional Interference Claims

    Assessments Underway After Hurricane Milton Rips Off Stadium Roof, Snaps Crane Boom in Florida

    Retroactive Application of a Construction Subcontract Containing a Merger Clause? Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal Answers in the Affirmative

    Classify Workers Properly to Avoid Expensive Penalties

    Contract And IP Implications Of Design Professionals Monetizing Non-Fungible Tokens Comprising Digital Construction Designs

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twenty White and Williams Lawyers

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Hacking Claim Under E&O Policy

    New York Appellate Division: Second Department Contradicts First Department, Denying Insurer's Recoupment of Defense Costs for Uncovered Claims

    Seattle Crane Strike Heads Into Labor Day Weekend After Some Contractors Sign Agreements

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

    Cooperating With Your Insurance Carrier: Is It a Must?

    Napa Quake Seen Costing Up to $4 Billion as Wineries Shut

    Dispute between City and Construction Company Over Unsightly Arches

    Does the Russia Ukraine War Lead to a Consideration in Your Construction Contracts?

    ConsensusDOCS Hits the Cloud

    Four Dead After Crane Collapses at Google’s Seattle Campus

    Bank of America’s Countrywide Ordered to Pay $1.3 Billion

    The Leaning Tower of San Francisco

    Wilke Fleury Attorney Featured in 2022 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!

    40 Year Anniversary – Congratulations Ed Doernberger

    Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

    Not All Work is Covered Under the Federal Miller Act

    Quick Note: Be Careful with Pay if Paid Clauses (Both Subcontractors and General Contractors)

    Monumental Museum Makeover Comes In For Landing

    Quick Note: Third-Party Can Bring Common Law Bad Faith Claim

    Development in CBF Green Building Case in Maryland

    Palm Beach Billionaires’ Fix for Sinking Megamansions: Build Bigger

    Union THUGS Plead Guilty

    No Occurrence Found for Damage to Home Caused by Settling

    Updates to AIA Contract Applications

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    Insurer Must Defend Claims of Alleged Willful Coal Removal
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Attorney Fee Award Under the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act

    February 16, 2016 —
    In late December, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dismissed, as improvidently granted, the appeal in Waller Corporation v. Warren Plaza, Inc., No. 6 WAP 2015 (December 21, 2015). As a result, the Superior Court’s holding in that case that there is no good faith exception to the attorney fee provision of the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA), 73 P.S. §§ 501-516, remains intact. In its decision in Waller, 95 A.3d 313 (Pa. Super. 2014), the Superior Court considered if there was a “good faith” exception to the interest and penalties provision of CASPA, 73 P.S. § 512(a), and whether there was a similar good faith exception to the attorney fee provision of the statute, 73 P.S. § 512(b). The court held that while an award of interest and penalties under § 512(a) could be denied if a party had a good faith basis for withholding payments due under a construction contract, no such exception exists for an award of attorney fees under § 512(b). Rather, an award of attorney fees is appropriate for the “substantially prevailing party” under a CASPA claim, and a claimant can be the substantially prevailing party even if the other party withheld payments in good faith. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William J. Taylor, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Kadeejah Kelly Named to The National Black Lawyers’ “Top 40 Under 40” List

    October 17, 2022 —
    New York, N.Y. (October 6, 2022) – New York Associate Kadeejah J. Kelly was recently named to The National Black Lawyers (NBL) “Top 40 Under 40” list. The NBL “Top 40 Under 40” recognizes the most talented black attorneys under the age of 40 who have an outstanding reputation among peers, the judiciary and the public. The honorees on this list are nominated from leading lawyers, current members, and Executive Committee members. Ms. Kelly is a member of the General Liability and Professional Liability Practices. She has extensive experience defending owners, contractors, developers and corporations in high exposure construction cases including New York Labor Law matters, premises liability and construction defect claims. She also has experience defending malpractice claims against attorneys, accountants, architects, engineers, funeral home directors and other miscellaneous professionals. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Bad News for Buyers: U.S. Mortgage Rates Hit Highest Since 2014

    February 22, 2018 —
    Shanne Sleder, a San Diego mortgage banker, recently had to break the bad news to some would-be homebuyers: Borrowing costs jumped about 6 percent since he pre-approved them a couple months ago. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg

    Court Finds That $400 Million Paid Into Abatement Fund Qualifies as “Damages” Under the Insured’s Policies

    November 21, 2022 —
    In Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, et al., the Court of Appeals for Ohio’s Eighth District reversed the lower court, finding that money paid by the insured into an abatement fund was “damages” as that undefined term was used in the policyholder’s insurance policies. 2022-Ohio-3031, ¶ 1. Sherwin-Williams is a cautionary tale about how insurers may try to narrow the meaning of undefined terms in their insurance policies. The dispute in Sherwin-Williams focused on coverage for $400 million that the policyholder and other defendants were ordered to pay into an abatement fund to be used by California cities and counties to mitigate the hazards caused by lead paint in homes. Id. ¶ 1. Although the underlying litigation proceeded in California, Ohio law governed coverage, which raised issues of first impression in Ohio. Id. Among other things, the insurers argued that the money paid into the abatement fund did not qualify as “damages” under the policies. Id. ¶ 57. The insured argued that, because the insurers did not define “damages” in the policies, the term had to be given its ordinary meaning. Id. ¶ 56. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut’s New False Claims Act Increases Risk to Public Construction Participants

    April 02, 2024 —
    After several decades, Governor Ned Lamont signed a bill into law, effective July 1, 2023, An Act Concerning Liability for False and Fraudulent Claims, Public Act No. 23-129, eliminating language that previously limited enforcement of Connecticut’s False Claims Act to claims relating to a state-administered health or human services program. The revisions dramatically expanded potential liability under the False Claims Act, allowing both private citizens and the Attorney General to bring actions under the Act in any context, including the construction industry. Consequently, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and design professionals on public construction projects in Connecticut must be familiar with this newly enacted law and take steps to reduce the risks of doing business on such projects. Reprinted courtesy of Fred Hedberg, Robinson & Cole LLP and William Stoll, Robinson & Cole LLP Mr. Hedberg may be contacted at fhedberg@rc.com Mr. Stoll may be contacted at wstoll@rc.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Faulty Work By Subcontractor Constitutes "Occurrence"

    July 31, 2013 —
    The U.S. District Court in Alabama certified a question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: Is damage to a project caused by faulty workmanship "property damage" resulting from an "occurrence"? With some qualification, the Connecticut Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. Capstone Building Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., SC 18886 (Conn. June 11, 2013). Captsone Development agreed to coordinate and supervise construction on a building at the University of Conneticut. Capstone Building was the general contractor. UConn secured an OCIP policy from American Motorist Insurance Company ("AMICO"). More than three years after completion, UConn notified the insureds of alleged defects in the project, including elevated levels of carbon monoxide. The source of the leak was the individual hot water heaters in residential units and insufficient draft of exhaust from the heater.Other defects were found during an investigation. The insureds tendered to AMICO. Coverage was denied because the liability arose out of the insureds' own work.The insureds settled with UConn, paying $1 million each. The insureds then sued AMICO in Alabama and the question was certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Hawaii Federal District Court Compels Appraisal

    December 03, 2024 —
    The Hawaii federal district court denied the insurers' motion to dismiss on forum non convenient grounds and granted the insured's motion to compel arbitration. BRE Hotels and Resorts LCC, et al. v. Ace Am Ins. Co., et al., 2024 U,.S. Dist. LEXIS 163852 (D. Haw. Sept. 11, 2024). BRE Hotels & Resorts LLC (BRE) owned the Grand Wailea Resort on Maui and the Turtle Bay Resort on Oahu. Both hotels were damaged by a rainstorm on March 9, 2021. Estimated losses exceeded $55 million. BRE filed a claim with its sixteen insurers. BRE sought $46 million in four categories: business interruption losses at the Grand Wailea ($29.6 million); damaged tiles at the Grand Wailea ($8.3 million); furniture, fixtures, and equipment at Turtel Bay ($6.2 million); and an assortment of ancillary issues at both properties ($1.9 million). The insurers investigated and took issued with BRE's estimates. The insurers contended that most of the tiles suffered from an independent defect and were not damaged by the storm, that the insurance policies did not cover the replacement of undamaged furniture, and that the claimed business interruption losses were too high. The insurers paid $4 million. 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

    New Iowa Law Revises Construction Defects Statute of Repose

    September 07, 2017 —
    Starting July 1st of this year, Iowa homeowners now have only ten years to file a claim against the builder instead of the fifteen years that was allowed previously, reported WZAD 8 News. Furthermore, commercial property owners will only have eight years to file their suits. Scott Webster, Vice President of the Quad Cities Builders and Re-modelers Association, told WZAD 8 News that insurance companies played a part in the change: “[I]nsurance companies were saying, Iowa is at such a long period of time for any kind of defect, that may be hard to prove whether the builder even did it or the homeowner modified the house.” However, Tom Miller, Iowa Attorney General, disagreed with the change in policy: “We think that it’s unfair to consumers, the defects in buildings and commercial buildings too, can show up very easily between eight and fifteen years out.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of