BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-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 low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut delay claim 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


    No Coverage For Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    This Company Wants to Cut Emissions to Zero in the Dirty Cement Business

    Manhattan Trophy Home Sellers Test Buyer Limits on Price

    APROPLAN and GenieBelt Merge, Creating “LetsBuild” – the Build Phase End-to-End Digital Platform

    Combating Climate Change by Reducing Embodied Energy in the Built Environment

    10-story Mass Timber 'Rocking' Frame Sails Through Seismic Shake Tests

    Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

    No Coverage for Collapse of Building

    Non-compliance With Endorsement Means No Indemnity Coverage

    A Court-Side Seat: May Brings Federal Appellate Courts Rulings and Executive Orders

    ENR Northwest’s Top Contractors Survey Reveals Regional Uptick

    Montana Significantly Revises Its Product Liability Laws

    Do Not Pass Go! Duty to Defend in a Professional Services Agreement (law note)

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Las Vegas Team on Obtaining Summary Judgment for the Firm’s Landowner Client!

    Coverage for Named Windstorm Removed by Insured, Terminating Such Coverage

    Mediation Fails In Federal Lawsuit Seeking Damages From Sureties for Alleged Contract Fraud

    Fire Fears After Grenfell Disaster Set Back Wood Building in UK

    TRI Pointe Merges with Weyerhaeuser’s Real Estate Company

    Deducting 2018 Real Property Taxes Prepaid in 2017 Comes with Caveats

    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

    2019 Promotions - New Partners at Haight

    Turkey to Start Building 200,000 Homes in March, Erdogan Says

    Skyline Cockpit’s Game-Changing Tower Crane Teleoperation

    Scarce Cemetery Space Creates Prices to Die For: Cities

    Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

    In Pennsylvania, Contractors Can Be Liable to Third Parties for Obvious Defects in Completed Work

    Largest US Dam Removal Stirs Debate Over Coveted West Water

    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

    Architect Blamed for Crumbling Public School Playground

    Groundbreaking on New Boulder Neighborhood

    Best Practices for ESI Collection in Construction Litigation

    A Year After Fatal Genoa Viaduct Collapse, Replacement Takes Shape

    Nonparty Discovery in California Arbitration: How to Get What You Want

    Tejon Ranch Co. Announces Settlement of Litigation Related to the Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement

    Congratulations to Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, Vik Nagpal, and Devin Gifford, and Associates Shelly Mosallaei and Melissa Youngpeter on Their Inclusion in 2024 Best Lawyers in America!

    New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws

    Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds Fire Damage Resulted from Single Occurrence

    Jason Smith and Teddie Arnold Co-Author Updated “United States – Construction” Chapter in 2024 Legal 500: Country Comparative Guides

    Can Your Employee File a Personal Injury Claim if They’re Injured at Work?

    The Death of Retail and Legal Issues

    Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?

    Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract is Only as Good as Those Signing It

    Happenings in and around the 2016 West Coast Casualty Seminar

    General Contractor’s Professional Malpractice/Negligence Claim Against Design Professional

    Pennsylvania Reconstruction Project Beset by Problems

    Hunton Insurance Recovery Partner Michael Levine Quoted on Why Courts Must Consider the Science of COVID-19

    California Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Commissioner’s Authority to Regulate Replacement Cost Estimates

    Construction Defects in Roof May Close School

    Homeowners Should Beware, Warn Home Builders
    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

    Is the Event You Are Claiming as Unforeseeable Delay Really Unforeseeable?

    September 26, 2022 —
    Is the item or event you are claiming as an unforeseeable, excusable delay really unforeseeable? This is not a trick question. Just because your construction contract identifies items or events that constitute unforeseeable, excusable delay does not mean those items can be used as a blanket excuse or crutch for the contractor. That would be unfair. For instance, it is not uncommon for a construction contract to list as unforeseeable, excusable delay the following events or items: “(i) acts of God or of the public enemy, (ii) act of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, (iii) acts of another Contractor in the performance of a contract with the Government, (iv) fires, (v) floods, (vi) epidemics, (vii) quarantine restrictions, (viii) strikes, (ix) freight embargoes, (x) unusually severe weather, or (xi) delays of subcontractors or suppliers at any tier arising from unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of both the Contractor and the subcontractors or suppliers.” See, e.g., F.A.R. 52.249-10(b)(1). While the itemization of excusable delay may be worded differently, the point is there may be a listing as to what items or events constitute excusable delay. An excusable delay would justify additional time and, potentially, compensation to the contractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Business Interruption Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part

    February 16, 2016 —
    The court granted portions of the business interruption claim, while denying other portions. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Infogroup, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162810 (S. D. Iowa Nov. 30, 2015). Phoenix insured Infogroup's business buildings and personal business property, including data and data processing equipment. In late May 2011, warnings were issued of possible flooding from the Missouri River. On June 1, 2011, Infogroup moved and relocated its business operations and data centers away from the river and did not intend to return to the facilities. On July 19, 2011, Phoenix advanced $500,000 to Infogroup for anticipated claims under the policy. On August 22, 2011, heavy rain left surface water in the parking lot at Infogroup's facilities. Infogroup claimed that it suffered minor property damage during July and August, 2011, including damage to an uninterruptable power source and damage to a server. 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

    Amada Family Limited Partnership v. Pomeroy: Colorado Court of Appeals Expressly Affirms the Continuing Viability of the Common-Law After-Acquired Title Doctrine and Expressly Recognizes Utility Easements by Necessity

    June 28, 2021 —
    On May 27, 2021, a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Amada Family Limited Partnership v. Pomeroy, 2021 COA 73. In that case, the court decided two significant issues that apparently had never been expressly ruled on by a Colorado appellate court before: (1) that Colorado’s common-law after-acquired title doctrine was not abrogated by adoption of the after-acquired interest statute; and (2) that utility easements may be implied by necessity. As is often the case in matters involving access and implied property rights, the facts and history underlying Amada are complicated, but the case’s two most significant rulings are not. Instead, the basic legal principles established (or confirmed) in Amada appear to be broadly applicable, and real property practitioners should take note of these significant developments (or clarifications) in the law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

    Florida’s Fourth District Appeals Court Clarifies What Actions Satisfy Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    November 14, 2018 —
    In Gindel v. Centex Homes, 2018 Fla.App. LEXIS 13019, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently concluded that the date on which the plaintiffs provided a pre-suit notice in compliance with §558.004 of Florida’s construction defect Right-to-Cure statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 558.001 to 558.005, et. seq., is the date on which the plaintiff commenced a “civil action or proceeding,” i.e. an “action,” within the meaning of Florida’s construction defect statute of repose, Florida Statue § 95.11(3)(c). Thus, reversing the decision of the trial court, the Fourth District held that the plaintiffs timely-filed their construction defect action against the defendants. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

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

    October 21, 2019 —
    In Rural Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lester Bldgs., LLC 2019 WI 70, 2019 Wisc. LEXIS 272, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin considered whether a subrogation waiver clause in a construction contract between the defendant and the plaintiff’s insured violated Wisconsin statute § 895.447, which prohibits limitations of tort liability in construction contracts. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision that the waiver clause did not violate the statute because it merely shifted the responsibility for the payment of damages to the defendant’s insurance company. The waiver clause did not limit or eliminate the defendant’s tort liability. This case establishes that while § 895.447 prohibits construction contracts from limiting tort liability, a subrogation waiver clause that merely shifts responsibility for the payment of damages from a tortfeasor to an insurer does not violate the statute and, thus, is enforceable. In Rural Mutual, the plaintiff’s insured, Jim Herman, Inc. (Herman), entered into a contract with Lester Buildings, LLC (Lester) to design and construct a barn on Herman’s property. The contract included a provision that stated the following: Both parties waive all rights against each other and any of their respective contractors, subcontractors and suppliers of any tier and any design professional engaged with respect to the Project, for recovery of any damages caused by casualty of other perils to the extent covered by property insurance applicable to the Work or the Project, except such rights as they have to the proceeds of such property insurance and to the extent necessary to recover amounts relating to deductibles of self-insured retentions applicable to insured losses. . . . This waiver of subrogation shall be effective notwithstanding allegations of fault, negligence, or indemnity obligation of any party seeking the benefit or production [sic] of such waiver. 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

    KB Homes Sues Condo Buyers over Alleged Cybersquatting and Hacking

    October 22, 2013 —
    Willowbrook, a condominium complex in Lakewood Ranch, Florida has had problems with water intrusion. Now the builder is having problems with some of the residents. National home builder KB Homes is alleging that a pair of Willowbrook home owners who created a web site about their problems have violated federal cybersquatting laws, as the web site names they have registered are close to that KB Homes. The suit alleges that Andrew Smith and Daniel Koehler hope to either get KB Homes to purchase the web site or to buy back their homes. The lawsuit also alleges that three other individuals, William Crismon, Patrick McGettigan, and Armando Oyola-Delgado, conspired to intercept e-mails between KB Home and Dueall Construction. KB Homes claims that the three gained access to a WiFi hotspot used by Dueall. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Crisis Averted! Pennsylvania Supreme Court Joins Other Courts in Finding that Covid-19 Presents No Physical Loss or Damage for Businesses

    October 21, 2024 —
    Seeking to find some relief from business losses experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses turned to their property insurers for coverage for their lost income. A clear national trend emerged among courts deciding the issue, as most businesses could not establish coverage because they had not experienced a “direct physical loss of or damage to their covered property” as required by most policies. While this legal question may have become an afterthought for many attorneys, the question remained an open one in Pennsylvania while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered two contradictory holdings issued in the Superior Court on this topic. Compare Macmiles, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch., 286 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding there was no coverage for loss of use of a commercial property unaccompanied by any physical alteration or other physical condition that rendered the property unusable or uninhabitable) with Ungarean v. CNA, 286 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding that the policy at issue was ambiguous and therefore the policy covered the insured for COVID-related business losses). Last week, the Supreme Court considered the Superior Court’s holdings in Macmiles and Ungarean and held, at long last, that COVID-19 did not cause a direct physical loss of or damage to covered property. Reprinted courtesy of Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado Senate Revives Construction Defects Reform Bill

    January 04, 2018 —
    Originally Published by CDJ on March 1, 2017 A re-booted construction defects reform bill recently passed its first Senate committee, according to the Denver Business Journal. Next, Senate Bill 156, sponsored by Sen. Owen Hill, R-Colorado Springs, heads to the Senate floor for debate. SB 156 “would require that condominium owners alleging construction defects take their disputes to arbitration or mediation if requested by builders,” the Denver Business Journal reported. “It also would require that homeowners be informed of the consequences of filing legal actions over purported disputes and that a majority of all owners in a condominium complex vote to proceed with legal action, rather than just a majority of homeowners association board members.” However, it is almost identical to the failed measures that were introduced in 2014 and 2015. Homeowners association group members and owners of defective condominiums argued against the measure, stating “that the effort would not improve the quality of building in the state, but simply would block aggrieved Coloradans from taking their complaints before a jury of their peers.” Proponent of the bill, Tom Clark, CEO of Metro Denver Economic Development Corp., said “that Denver’s housing costs have risen since the first bill was introduced in 2013 to the sixth-most-expensive in the country – and are tops for any metro area not on a coast.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of