BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield 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


    Dorian Lashes East Canada, Then Weakens Heading Out to Sea

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

    Pre-Suit Settlement Offers and Construction Lien Actions

    Washington Supreme Court Expands Contractor Notice Obligations

    Condominiums and Homeowners Associations Remain Popular Housing Choices for U-S Homeowners

    Construction Insurance Rates Up in the United States

    Differences in Types of Damages Matter

    Ackman Group Pays $91.5 Million for Condo at NYC’s One57

    Prevailing Payment Bond Surety Entitled to Statutory Attorneys’ Fees Even if Defended by Principal

    As California Faces Mandatory Water Use Reductions How Will the Construction Industry be Impacted?

    How Long Does a Civil Lawsuit Take?

    Vinny Testaverde Alleges $5 Million Mansion Riddled with Defects

    Delays Caused When Government (Owner) Pushes Contractor’s Work Into Rainy / Adverse Weather Season

    Homebuilders Go Green in Response to Homebuyer Demand

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

    BWB&O Expands to North San Diego

    Final Furnishing Date is a Question of Fact

    SkenarioLabs Uses AI for Property Benchmarking

    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

    Modification: Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor’s Employee

    COVID-19 Vaccine Considerations for Employers in the Construction Industry

    Coverage Rejected Under Owned Property and Alienated Property Exclusions

    Be Sure to Dot All of the “I’s” and Cross the “T’s” in Virginia

    San Francisco International Airport Reaches New Heights in Sustainable Project Delivery

    Ohio Supreme Court Holds No Occurence Arises from Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded "Because Of" Property Damage Are Covered by Policy

    Metrostudy Shows New Subdivisions in Midwest

    US Appeals Court Slams FERC on Long-Muddled State Environmental Permits

    Second Circuit Denies Petitions for Review of EPA’s Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures

    Singer Akon’s Multibillion-Dollar Futuristic City in Africa Gets Final Notice

    Massachusetts Court Holds Statute of Repose Bars Certain Asbestos-Related Construction Claims

    Insurer Need Not Pay for Rejected Defense When No Reservation of Rights Issued

    Update Coverage for Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    Construction Defect Coverage Barred Under Business Risk Exclusion in Colorado

    Thoughts on New Pay if Paid Legislation

    Deescalating Hyper Escalation

    Issues of Fact Prevent Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

    ASBCA Validates New Type of Claim Related to Unfavorable CPARS Review [i]

    “Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit

    Firm Seeks to Squash Subpoena in Coverage CD Case

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 37 White And Williams Lawyers

    Supreme Court Holds Arbitrator can Fully Decide Threshold Arbitrability Issue

    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award

    Owner’s Obligation Giving Notice to Cure to Contractor and Analyzing Repair Protocol

    County Elects Not to Sue Over Construction Defect Claims

    Court Upholds Denial of Collapse Coverage Where Building Still Stands

    Massachusetts Federal Court Rejects Adria Towers, Finds Construction Defects Not an “Occurrence”

    Prison Contractors Did Not Follow the Law

    Canada Housing Surprises Again With July Starts Increase

    Another Reason to Love Construction Mediation (Read: Why Mediation Works)
    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. Drawing 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

    Investigators Explain Focus on Pre-Collapse Cracking in Florida Bridge

    June 06, 2018 —
    The National Transportation Safety Board's preliminary report on the fatal collapse in March of a pedestrian bridge at Florida International University in Sweetwater focuses attention on the widely discussed pre-collapse cracking in the main span. The report also confirms accounts about what the construction crew working on the bridge was doing before the structure fell. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Judy, ENR and Richard Korman, ENR Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Small Stuff: Small Claims Court and Limited Civil Court Jurisdictional Limits

    June 10, 2024 —
    Sometimes the small stuff matters. And when it comes to legal disputes this can pose a problem for clients as well as their attorneys because litigation and arbitration, the two most frequently utilized venues to resolve legal disputes in the United States, can be and usually are expensive. Data on the cost of civil litigation is sparse. According to a 2013 survey of trial lawyers conducted by the National Center of State Courts, the median cost of litigating a contract dispute – which is the category that most construction disputes would fall under – is $90,575. And this is in 2013 dollars. With inflation, that number rises to nearly $120,000 in 2023, and based upon our experience litigating and arbitrating complex (and even not so complex) construction disputes, it can be many multiples over that. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

    February 04, 2013 —
    Douglas E. Cameron, Jay M. Levin, and Traci S. Rea look at the implications of a pair of Pennsylvania court decisions from 2012. The judge in both cases, Judge Wettick of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas held that comprehensive general liability policies do not cover any claims that arise from faulty workmanship. The three conclude that "these holdings may preclude coverage for any tort claims asserted against your company if the allegations involve construction defects, even if you are sued for property damage or personal injury by a third party to your construction contract." They note that both decisions have been appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fifth Circuit Finds Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    March 14, 2022 —
    Reversing the judgment of the district court, the Fifth Circuit found the insurer owed a defense in a construction defect case. Siplast, Inc. v. Emplrs Mut. Cas. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 795 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022). The Archdiocese of New York sued various parties for a roofing project at a high school in the Bronx. Siplast, the roofing manufacturer, was included as a defendant. The underlying lawsuit arose from the Archdiocese purchase of a roof membrane system from Siplast. Siplast guaranteed that the roof membrane system would remain "in a watertight condition for a period of 20 years . . . or Siplast will repair the Roof Membrane System at its own expense." After installation of the roof, school officials noticed water damage in the ceiling tiles throughout the school after a rain storm. Siplast attempted to repair the damage, but was unsuccessful. Siplast later informed the Archdiocese that the guarantee would not be honored regarding any permanent improvements of the roof. The Archdiocese filed suit against Siplast and the installing contractor. The cause of action against Siplast was for breach of the guarantee. 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

    Summary Judgment Granted to Insurer for Hurricane Damage

    January 24, 2022 —
    The insurer's motion for summary judgment, contending there was no coverage for hurricane damage, was granted. Laurence v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227807 (S.D. Texas Nov. 29, 2021). When Hurricane Harvey hit, Mike Laurence held a homeowner's policy from Liberty Insurance Corporation and a contractor policy for his business, Pride Plumbing, Inc., issued by State Farm Lloyds. Laurence's property suffered water damage during the storm. State Farm investigated and concluded that all but a small amount, within the policy's deductible, was from flood damage and excluded. Laurence sued. The property covered by the State Farm policy included Laurence's home, Pride Plumbing's office and two sheds. Pride Pluming did not own or lease any of the buildings on the property. Laurence testified in his deposition that the only damage to his property not caused by flood water was to three buildings from fallen tree limbs and equipment from his business. 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

    Colorado House Bill 17-1279 – A Misguided Attempt at Construction Defect Reform

    March 29, 2017 —
    On March 17th, House Bill 17-1279, concerning the requirement that a unit owners’ association obtain approval through a vote of unit owners before filing a construction defect action, was introduced and assigned to the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee. The bill is currently scheduled for its first committee hearing on March 29th, at 1:30 in the afternoon. While, on its face, this appears to be a step in the right direction towards instituting “informed consent” before an HOA can file a construction defect action, the bill actually restricts the ability of developer to include more stringent requirements in the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions for an association, thereby lowing the threshold of “consent” required to institute an action. House Bill 17-1279 would amend C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5 to require an association’s executive board to mail or deliver written notice of the anticipated commencement of a construction defect action to each unit owner and to call a meeting of the unit owners to consider whether to bring such an action. Any construction professional against which a claim may attend the unit owners’ meeting and have an opportunity to address the unit owners and may include an offer to remedy any defect in accordance with C.R.S. § 13-20-803.5(3). The conclusion of the meeting would initiate a 120-day voting period, during which period the running of any applicable statutes of limitation or repose would be tolled. Pursuant to this bill, an executive board may only institute a construction defect action only if authorized by a simple majority of the unit owners, not including: 1) any unit owned by any construction professional, or affiliate of a construction professional, involved in the design, construction, or repair of any portion of the project; 2) any unit owned by a banking institution; 3) any unit owned in which no defects are alleged to exist, and/or 4) any unit owned by an individual deemed “nonresponsive.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: LESLIE KING O'NEAL

    January 29, 2024 —
    Company: JAMS Office Location: Orlando, FL Email: lkoneal1117@gmail.com Website: https://www.jamsadr.com/oneal/ Law School: University of Florida, J.D. (1977) Types of ADR services offered: Mediation, arbitration, neutral evaluation Geographic area served: Nationwide Q: Describe the path you took to becoming an ADR neutral. A: Florida was one of the first states to allow judges to send civil cases to mediation. When I was an advocate, nearly all my cases went to mediation at least once—sometimes more than once! I became a firm believer in the value of mediation and other ADR methods. I became a Florida certified circuit court mediator in 2021 and I joined JAMS in 2022, after retiring as in-house counsel with Brasfield & Gorrie, a large commercial general contractor. I am also an adjunct professor at Pepperdine Law School, teaching arbitration theory and practice in its master of dispute resolution and master of laws programs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLP
    Ms. Downs may be contacted at mdowns@lauriebrennan.com

    Wisconsin Court Applies the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Negligence Claims for Purely Economic Losses

    August 17, 2020 —
    In Mech. Inc. v. Venture Elec. Contrs., Inc., No. 2018AP2380, 2020 Wisc. App. LEXIS 170, the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District Two, considered whether a party may bring a negligence claim for purely economic damages. In upholding the lower court, the appellate court found that a party is barred by the Economic Loss Doctrine from bringing a negligence claim for purely economic damages. Both parties involved in this action were subcontractors on a building project at the Great Lakes Research Facility for the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. As a result of Venture Electrical Contractors, Inc. (Venture) not paying for requested work, Mechanical, Inc. (Mechanical) sued Venture for $11,961.31. Venture, in turn, countersued in negligence for $1.1 million for costs incurred due to delays and untimely performance. Mechanical sought dismissal of the negligence claim based upon the Economic Loss Doctrine. Finding that the Economic Loss Doctrine applies to purely economic losses, the trial court dismissed Venture’s negligence claim. Venture appealed to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin. 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