BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield 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


    Affirmed

    Purely “Compensatory” Debts Owed by Attorneys to Clients (Which Are Not Disciplinary or Punitive Fees Imposed by the State Bar) Are Dischargeable In Bankruptcy

    Slow Down?

    Does a Broker Forfeit His or Her Commission for Technical Non-Compliance with Department of Real Estate Statutory Requirements?

    The Construction Industry's Health Kick

    U.S. Navy Sailors Sue Tokyo Utility Company Over Radiation Poisoning

    Workers at Two NFL Stadiums Test Positive for COVID-19, But Construction Continues

    Nondelegable Duty of Care Owed to Third Persons

    PATH Station Designed by Architect Known for Beautiful Structures, Defects, and Cost Overruns

    No Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims

    Construction Contract Basics: No Damages for Delay

    Is Settling a Bond Claim in the Face of a Seemingly Clear Statute of Limitations Defense Bad Faith?

    Manhattan Luxury Condos Sit on Market While Foreign Buyers Wait

    Update Coverage for Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part I

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2019

    Philadelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program

    Power & Energy - Emerging Insurance Coverage Cases of Interest

    What Buyers Want in a Green Home—and What They Don’t

    Traub Lieberman Partner Stephen Straus Wins Spoliation Motion in Favor of Defendant

    Hilary Soaks California With Flooding Rain and Snarls Flights

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

    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

    Five New Laws to Know Before They Take Effect On Jan. 1, 2022

    New Addition to the ASCE/SEI 7-22 Standard Protects Buildings from a 500-year Flood Event

    20 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2020 Top Lawyers!

    Michael Baker Intl. Settles Federal Pay Bias Allegations

    Construction Litigation—Battles on Many Fronts

    Miorelli Doctrine’s Sovereign Immunity in Public Construction Contracts — Not the Be-All and End-All

    The Insurance Coverage Debate on Construction Defects Continues

    Builders Arrested after Building Collapses in India

    Fifth Circuit -- Damage to Property Beyond Insured’s Product/Work Not Precluded By ‘Your Product/Your Work Exclusion’

    Engineer TRC Fends Off Lawsuits After Merger

    Do We Really Want Courts Deciding if Our Construction Contracts are Fair?

    Ensuring Arbitration in Construction Defect Claims

    The 411 on the New 415 Location of the Golden State Warriors

    Preparing for the 2015 Colorado Legislative Session

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in 2019 Edition of Who’s Who Legal

    Traub Lieberman Elects New Partners for 2020

    Remand of Bad Faith Claim Evidences Split Among Florida District Courts

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    What Are The Most Commonly Claimed Issues In Construction Defect Litigation?

    Title II under ADA Applicable to Public Rights-of-Way, Parks and Other Recreation Areas

    Virginia Chinese Drywall “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and number of “occurrences”

    Congratulations to Woodland Hills Partner Patrick Au and Senior Associate Ava Vahdat on Their Successful Motion for Summary Judgment!

    In Colorado, Primary Insurers are Necessary Parties in Declaratory Judgment Actions

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    US Court Questions 102-Mile Transmission Project Over River Crossing

    ACEC Statement on Negotiated Bipartisan Debt Limit Compromise
    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

    Supreme Court Holds That Prevailing Wage Statute is Constitutional

    November 28, 2022 —
    The Supreme Court recently held[1] that Senate Bill 5493 (“SSB 5493”), which alters the method for how the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ industrial statistician sets the prevailing wages for employees on public works projects, is constitutional. Prior to the enactment of SSB 5493, the industrial statistician set prevailing wages for each trade on a county-by-county basis based on either the majority or average wage rate in that specific county. Following SSB 5493’s enactment, the industrial statistician would be required to adopt the prevailing wage rate for a county solely based on collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) for that trade. If a trade has more than one CBA in a county, the highest wage rate will prevail. SSB 5493 has negative impacts on employers because it creates the potential for wage rates to be set based on CBAs that represent the minority of hours worked in a county. The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 302, provides an example of this. AGC began negotiations with an operators’ union for a master labor agreement, which would cover almost all operating engineers in 16 Washington State counties. When they could not reach an agreement, Local 302 called a strike against the employers. After one week of the strike, Local 302 approached small employers and negotiated a side agreement. Some of these employers were also card-carrying members of Local 302. A few weeks later, AGC ratified a new agreement with Local 302 that included lower wages than the side agreements. Because the rates in the side agreement were higher, those wage rates became the prevailing wage in 16 counties even though they represented a minority of the hours worked. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Cassidy Ingram, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
    Ms. Ingram may be contacted at cassidy.ingram@acslawyers.com

    Record Keeping—the Devil’s in the Details

    July 30, 2015 —
    Another court has found that poor record keeping will prevent recovery on a claim. The court in Weatherproofing Tech., Inc. v. Alacran Contracting, LLC found that a contractor’s documents were a mess and that no reasonable jury could base a verdict on the contractor’s records. The underlying project involved the construction of an army training facility. The total project cost approximated $13 million. Alacran, the general contractor, subcontracted about $3 million of the work to Weatherproofing Tech. Alacran paid Weatherproofing $700,000 for its work, even though Weatherproofing submitted invoices of more than $2 million. Alacran justified its refusal to pay Weatherproofing on the grounds that the parties had agreed to split the profit and loss on the project and the project was out of money. Not surprisingly, Weatherproofing sued Alacran for the amount owed. 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

    Statutory Bad Faith and an Insured’s 60 Day Notice to Cure

    April 11, 2018 —
    A recent case came out in favor of an insured and against a first-party property insurer in the triggering of a statutory bad faith action. Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal in Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D679a (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) held that if an insurer pays a claim after the 60-day notice to cure period provided by Florida Statute s. 624.155(3), this “constitutes a determination of an insurer’s liability for coverage and extent of damages under section 624.155(1)(b) even when there is no underlying action.Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Supreme Court Set to Alter Law on Key Project, Workforce Issues

    December 02, 2019 —
    With its term now under way, the U.S. Supreme Court could change federal laws with industry impact—from where huge pipelines can be built and new regulation of pollution in groundwater to whether LGBTQ workers have anti-bias rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Must Defend General Contractor

    April 03, 2023 —
    Interpreting Massachusetts law, the federal district court determined consequential damage resulting from the insured's faulty work triggered a duty to defend. Capitol Spec. Ins. Corp. v. Dello Russo Enter. LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11627 (D. Mass. Jan. 24, 2023). Peta-Gay and Michael Print sued the insured, Dello Russo, who they hired as the general contractor for extensive remodelling and renovation of their building. During the demolition work, certain structural load-bearing walls were removed, including a portion of an exterior bricked masonry wall. Shoring of other parts of the building was inadequate and removal of the masonry wall reduced the structural integrity of the building. Cracks began to appear in the remaining portion of the masonry wall and increased over the next few days. Soon thereafter, the City of Boston determined the building was dangerous and that salvage of the undamaged portions was not feasible. Therefore, the building was demolished. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, filed suit against Dello Russo as subrogee of the Prinns. Dello Russo tendered the complaint to its insurer, Capitol Specialty Insurance Corporation, who defended under a reservation of rights,. Capitol then filed a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or to indemnify. The parties cross-claimed for summary judgment. 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

    NYC Supertall Tower Condo Board Sues Over Alleged Construction, Design 'Defects'

    October 04, 2021 —
    The condominium board at a 1,396-ft-tall residential tower on New York City’s Billionaires’ Row has sued the building’s developers, claiming to have identified more than 1,500 construction and design defects in common areas alone. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pre-Judgment Interest Not Awarded Under Flood Policy

    January 17, 2023 —
    The court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss state law and extracontractual claims, including pre-judgment interest. Hurley v. Wright Nat'l Flood Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Distl. LEXIS 203803 (W.D. La. Nov. 8, 2022). The insured suffered damage from Hurricane Delta. He filed suit, alleging that Wright National Flood Insurance Company breached the Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP). The insured sought damages for state law claims for bad faith, diminution in value, actual repair costs, attorney's fees , litigation costs, and interest. Wright moved to dismiss the extracontractual state law causes of action for bad faith and various claims for damages, other than the damages sought for the alleged breach of the SFIP. The court explained that the Write-Your-Own (WYO) Program carriers issuing flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) arranged for the adjustment, settlement, payment, and defense of all claims arising from the policy. Congress underwrote all operations of the NIFP, including claims adjustment, through United States Treasury funds. A judgment against a WYO Program carrier constituted a judgment against FEMA, and consequently, a direct charge on the United States Treasury.  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

    Spa High-Rise Residents Frustrated by Construction Defects

    February 07, 2013 —
    Is this part of the spa treatment? A couple has sued over problems at Miraval Living, a luxury high-rise on the East Side of Manhattan. There was supposed to be ballroom dancing, culinary classes, and yoga. Anthony Argyrides's lawsuit notes that those didn't materialize. What they did get, he claims, was faulty plumbing, crumbling fixtures, and defective floor tiles. Mr. Argyrides claims that his front door "spontaneously fell of its hinges and nearly hit FiOS installation workers." Meanwhile, building management has ended their agreement with Miraval and need to find someone else to operate the building's spa. Argyrides and his fellow building residents might need something more than a few deep calming breaths. He's suing for $5.5 million. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of