BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering 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


    What Should Business Owners Do If a Customer Won’t Pay

    Alexus Williams Receives Missouri Lawyers Media 2021 Women’s Justice Pro Bono Award

    The Argument for Solar Power

    Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Applied to Pass-Through Agreements

    Business Risk Exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 Found Ambiguous

    Apartment Projects Fuel 13% Jump in U.S. Housing Starts

    Partners Patti Santelle and Gale White honored by as "Top Women in Law" The Legal Intelligencer

    Georgia Supreme Court Determines Damage to "Other Property" Not Necessary for Finding Occurrence

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms Eight-Year Limit on Construction Defect Lawsuits

    The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation

    Builder and County Tussle over Unfinished Homes

    White House Reverses Trump Administration NEPA Cutbacks

    How Does Your Construction Contract Treat Float

    New Jersey Senate Advances Bad Faith Legislation

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Don’t Forget to Visit BHA’s Booth at WCC to Support Charity

    “Based On”… What Exactly? NJ Appellate Division Examines Phrase and Estops Insurer From Disclaiming Coverage for 20-Month Delay

    Dispute Resolution Provision in Subcontract that Says Owner, Architect or Engineer’s Decision Is Final

    Preparing Your Business For Internal Transition

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case Triggered by Complaint's Allegations

    Coverage Article - To Settle or Not To Settle?

    Notice and Claims Provisions In Contracts Matter…A Lot

    California Assembly Bill Proposes an End to Ten Year Statute of Repose

    Hurricane Warning: Florida and Southeastern US Companies – It is Time to Activate Your Hurricane Preparedness Plan and Review Key Insurance Deadlines

    CISA Guidance 3.1: Not Much Change for Construction

    Future Army Corps Rulings on Streams and Wetlands: Changes and Delays Ahead

    Unravel the Facts Before Asserting FDUTPA and Tortious Interference Claims

    2023 Construction Law Update

    Recent Third Circuit OSHA Decision Sounds Alarm for Employers and Their Officers

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant

    ACEC Statement on Negotiated Bipartisan Debt Limit Compromise

    Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

    The Colorado Supreme Court affirms Woodbridge II’s “Adverse Use” Distinction

    South Carolina’s New Insurance Data Security Act: Pebbles Before a Landslide?

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2022 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

    Top 10 Take-Aways: the ABA Forum's 2024 Mid-Winter Meeting

    Obama Asks for $302 Billion to Fix Bridges and Potholes

    Massachusetts Federal Court Holds No Coverage for Mold and Water Damage Claim

    Payne & Fears Recognized by Best Lawyers in 2025 Best Law Firms®

    Virtual Reality for Construction

    Manhattan Townhouse Sells for a Record $79.5 Million

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter

    Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

    Recent Supreme Court Decision Could Have Substantial Impact on Builders

    Appellate Court of Maryland Construes Notice Conditions of A312 Performance Bond in Favor of Surety

    Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: TOM NOCAR

    New York vs. Miami: The $50 Million Penthouse Battle From Zaha Hadid

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

    Another Case Highlighting the Difference Between CGL Policies and Performance Bonds
    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

    Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Honors Construction Attorney

    November 20, 2013 —
    Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly has named Grace V. B. Garcia one of its 2013 Top Women of the Law. She is an attorney at Morrison Mahoney LLP in Boston, and her practice focuses on construction law, product liability, premises liability, commercial litigation, and American with Disability Act cases. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    November 18, 2011 —

    The court determined that the Faulty Workmanship Exclusion only barred coverage for damages arising from problems with the property under construction itself and not to losses incurred to correct damage from accidents during construction. See 1756 First Associates, LLC v. Continental Casualty Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117100 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2011).

    A tower crane collapsed at the construction site, causing damage. First Associates tendered the claim to its insurer, Continental. Continental reimbursed First Associates for certain costs arising from damage to and cleanup of the construction site and building stemming from the crane collapse. Continental refused, however, to reimburse First Associates for costs associated with construction delays resulting from the collapse.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Evolving Climate Patterns and Extreme Weather Demand New Building Methods

    May 22, 2023 —
    Compared to the rest of the world, most buildings in the United States are relatively young. But most residential and commercial properties could use a makeover. Buildings constructed over twenty, fifty and one hundred years ago are, unsurprisingly, not as energy-efficient or as safe as new builds following modern methods—especially when considering the effects of climate change and more frequent extreme weather events on the integrity of that infrastructure. According to the National Association of Home Builders, over 90% of new homes built in the United States today are wood-framed. These homes are incapable of withstanding a tornado or hurricane, yet they are still being built directly in the path of storms. Even buildings constructed in some of the most earthquake-prone areas of the U.S. may contain design flaws that make them susceptible to damage because they are built using a non-ductile concrete method, which experts say has an inadequate configuration of steel reinforcing bars—making the building vulnerable when shaken. While this building method was banned for new construction, it is not yet required to retrofit older construction to improve safety and structural integrity. Reprinted courtesy of Annette Rubin, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pollution Exclusion Does Not Apply To Concrete Settling Dust

    November 28, 2018 —
    Applying Virginia law, the federal district court determined that the pollution exclusion did not bar coverage. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Zenith Aviation, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14727 (E.D. Va. Aug. 29, 2018). Zenith Aviation, Inc. hired Abby Construction Company to install an elevator at its warehouse. A wet saw was used to cut away concrete, but Abby did not use any water with the wet saw. This created a significant amount of concrete dust to leave the warehouse. Surrounding businesses contacted the fire department because they thought the dust was smoke from a fire. The concrete dust settled inside Zenith's building, damaging airplane parts stored in the warehouse. 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

    “Professional Best Efforts” part 2– Reservation of Rights for Engineers who agree to “best” efforts? (law note)

    April 20, 2017 —
    Recently, a reader reached out to me to ask about case examples of an engineer losing his insurance coverage because he agreed to a “heightened” or “best” standard of care. The reader stated that he was an insurance adviser who handled various construction professional coverages, and that in his experience it was very unusual to deny or limit damages because of a heightened standard of care. This comment led me to an informal survey of several insurance brokers that I deal with, and the general consensus is that instead of outright denying a claim, most E&O insurers will issue a “reservation of rights” letter. What that means is that the insurance company will defend the claim (i.e., pay for your lawyer to defend you and your Firm), but with the understanding that they are (potentially) denying any liability for any adverse money judgment against you. Inevitably, most such cases settle, but if they do not, the question then is whether the heightened duty created part of the damages. The insurer may ask to intervene in the lawsuit to ask the jury that question, in an effort to limit its share of the damages. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” in four practice areas and Tier 2 in one practice area by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2020

    December 09, 2019 —
    Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® (2020 Edition) “Best Law Firms” list with five metro rankings in the following areas: Los Angeles
    • Tier 1
      • Insurance Law
      • Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
      • Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
      • Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs
    • Tier 2
      • Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs
      Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

      “Slow and Steady Doesn’t Always Win the Race” – Applicability of a Statute of Repose on Indemnity/Contribution Claims in New Hampshire

      November 24, 2019 —
      In Rankin v. South Street Downtown Holdings, Inc., 2019 N.H. LEXIS 165, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire considered, pursuant to a question transferred by the trial court, whether RSA 508:4-b, the statute of repose for improvements to real property, applies to indemnity and contribution claims. The court concluded that based upon the plain reading of the statute, it applies to indemnity and contribution claims. As noted by the court, a holding to the contrary would violate the intent of a statute of repose, which is to establish a time limit for when a party is exposed to liability. In Rankin, after falling and injuring himself while leaving a building, John Rankin and his wife brought an action against the property owner, South Street Downtown Holding, Inc. (South Street) in 2017. South Street subsequently filed a third-party complaint against multiple parties including an architectural company, Wagner Hodgson, Inc. (Wagner), who was involved in a renovation project at the property. The project was substantially complete in 2009. Wagner responded by moving to dismiss the action, arguing that South Street’s indemnification and contribution claims were barred by the applicable statute of repose. RSA 508:4-b specifically states,
      Except as otherwise provided in this section, all actions to recover damages for injury to property, injury to the person, wrongful death or economic loss arising out of any deficiency in the creation of an improvement to real property, including without limitation the design, labor, materials, engineering, planning, surveying, construction, observation, supervision or inspection of that improvement, shall be brought within 8 years from the date of substantial completion of the improvement, and not thereafter. (Emphasis added).
      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

      Texas Federal District Court Dismisses COVID-19 Claim

      October 25, 2020 —
      Judge Ezra, formerly on the bench in Hawaii, dismissed a COVID-19 claim pursued by a Texas policy holder. Diesel Barbershop, LLC v. State Farm Lloyds, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147276 (W.D. Texas Aug. 13, 2020). Local and state officials in Texas issued shutdown orders in March 2020 due to the spread of the cornavirus. All non-essential businesses, including the insureds' barbershop businesses, were ordered closed from April 2, 2020 until April 30, 2020. The insureds submitted a claim for business interruption and civil authority coverage to their carrier, State Farm. The claim was denied based on the policy's exclusion for loss caused by enforcement of ordinance or law, virus, and consequential losses. For Civil Authority coverage, State Farm contended the policy required that there by physical damage within one mile of the described property and that the damage be the result of a Covered Cause of Loss, which, State Farm asserted, a virus was not. The insureds sued and State Farm moved to dismiss. The court noted cases in which courts had found physical loss even without tangible destruction to the covered property. Yet, the court found that the line of cases requiring tangible injury to property were more persuasive. Therefore, the court found that the insureds failed to plead a direct physical loss. 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