BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expert
    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


    Why Should Businesses Seek Legal Help Early On?

    Florida Issues Emergency Fraud Prevention Rule to Protect Policyholders in Wake of Catastrophic Storms

    Illinois Legislature Passes Bill Allowing Punitive Damages In Most Wrongful Death Actions

    Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees on Attorney’s Fees

    More on the VCPA and Construction

    Affordable Global Housing Will Cost $11 Trillion

    The Risks and Rewards of Sustainable Building Design

    The Contributors to This Blog Are Pleased to Announce That….

    Don’t Conspire to Build a Home…Wait…What?

    Judge Who Oversees Mass. Asbestos Docket Takes New Role As Chief Justice of Superior Court

    New York Appellate Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

    Naughty or Nice. Contractor Receives Two Lumps of Coal in Administrative Dispute

    Former NJ Army Base $2B Makeover is 'Buzzsaw' of Activity

    Association Insurance Company v. Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC: Federal Court Reaffirms That There Is No Duty to Defend or Indemnify A Builder For Defective Construction Work

    Supreme Court Rejects “Wholly Groundless” Exception to Question of Arbitrability

    “Bound by the Bond”

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

    One World Trade Center Due to Be America’s Tallest and World’s Priciest

    Construction Bidding for Success

    Hunton Andrews Kurth Promotes Insurance Recovery Lawyer Andrea (Andi) DeField to Partner

    U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Maritime Charters and the Specter of a New Permitting Regime

    Following Pennsylvania Trend, Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Construction Defect

    Liquidated Damages: A Dangerous Afterthought

    LA County Begins Arduous Cleanup, Rebuild Effort in Altadena as New Fire Flares

    Amazon Feels the Heat From Hoverboard Fire Claims

    Louisiana Couple Claims Hurricane Revealed Construction Defects

    Showdown Over Landmark Housing Law Looms at U.S. Supreme Court

    Almost Half of Homes in New York and D.C. Are Now Losing Value

    Insurance Policy’s “No Voluntary Payment” Clauses Lose Some Bite in Colorado

    Property Insurance Exclusion: Leakage of Water Over 14 Days or More

    Richest NJ Neighborhood Fights Plan for Low-Cost Homes on Toxic Dump

    Construction Delayed by Discovery of Bones

    Los Angeles Wildfires to Impact Profitability of US Property Insurers, Says GlobalData

    Cost of Materials Holding Back Housing Industry

    Contract Provisions That Help Manage Risk on Long-Term Projects

    LaGuardia Airport Is a Mess. An Engineer-Turned-Fund Manager Has a Fix

    The Firm Hits the 9 Year Mark!

    Insured's Claim for Replacement Cost Denied

    WSHB Ranks No.10 in Law360’s Best of Law Firms for Women

    Miller Act Statute of Limitations and Equitable Tolling

    Mercury News Editorial Calls for Investigation of Bay Bridge Construction

    Judgment Proof: Reducing Litigation Exposure with Litigation Risk Insurance

    U.S. Housing Starts Top Forecast on Single-Family Homes

    Contractors Should be Aware of Homeowner Duties When Invited to Perform Residential Work

    Contractor Wins in Arbitration Only to Lose Before the Superior Court on Section 7031 Claim

    Choice of Law Provisions in Construction Contracts

    Leaky Wells Spur Call for Stricter Rules on Gas Drilling

    Detect and Prevent Construction Fraud

    U.S. Home Prices Rose More Than Estimated in February

    Customer’s Agreement to Self-Insure and Release for Water Damage Effectively Precludes Liability of Storage Container Company
    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

    #7 CDJ Topic: Truck Ins. Exchange v. O'Mailia

    December 30, 2015 —
    According to attorney Tred R. Eyerly on a post on his Insurance Law Hawaii blog, “The Montana Supreme Court determined there was no coverage for the insured due to a lack of property damage during the policy period.” Eyerly concluded, “Even if exposure to excessively high temperatures created a harmful condition during the policy period, the existence of that condition did not result in property damage to the water heater occurring during the policy period, and thus did not constitute an ‘occurrence’ as defined by the policy.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Amazon Feels the Heat From Hoverboard Fire Claims

    January 20, 2020 —
    In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 3:18CV166-M-P, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189053 (Oct. 31, 2019), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi considered a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon). Amazon argued that, because it was a “service provider” who cannot be held liable under Mississippi’s Product Liability Act (MPLA), Miss. Code § 11.1.63, the negligence and negligent failure to warn claims filed against it by plaintiff State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (State Farm) failed as a matter of law. The court, looking beyond the MPLA, held that State Farm’s complaint stated a claim against Amazon. In State Farm, Taylor and Laurel Boone (the Boones), State Farm’s subrogors, purchased two hoverboards from third parties in transactions facilitated by Amazon. They purchased the first hoverboard on October 31, 2015 and the second on November 10, 2015. The Boones started using the hoverboards on or about December 25, 2015. On March 16, 2016, the hoverboards caught fire and the fire spread to destroy the Boones’ home. As alleged in the amended complaint, the hoverboards were “manufactured by unknown manufacturers from China.” State Farm, as the Boones’ subrogee, filed suit asserting negligence and negligent failure to warn claims against Amazon. Amazon filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that State Farm’s claims against it were governed by the MPLA and, as a service provider, it was not liable under the MPLA. In response, State Farm argued that Amazon was liable because it acted as a “marketplace” and that, rather than MPLA claims, Amazon is subject to common law negligence and failure to warn claims. The District Court agreed with State Farm. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    First-Party Statutory Bad Faith – 60 Days to Cure Means 60 Days to Cure

    October 19, 2020 —
    In a first party bad-faith lawsuit, such as a bad faith claim against an insured’s property insurer, there are three requirements that must be met before the bad faith lawsuit is filed: “‘(1) determination of the insurer’s liability for coverage; (2) determination of the extent of the insured’s damages; and (3) the required notice must be filed under section 624.155(3)(a).’” Fortune v. First Protective Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2092a (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (citation omitted). The third requirement is for the insured to file a Civil Remedy Notice (known as a “CRN”) as a condition precedent to filing a statutory bad faith lawsuit giving the insurer 60 days’ notice of the bad faith violation and to cure the violation, i.e., pay the claim if the violation is payment. A very common bad faith payment violation is the assertion that the insurer did NOT attempt “in good faith to settle claims when, under the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly towards its insured and with due regard for his or her interests.” Fla. Stat. s. 624.155(1)(b)(1). 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

    English v. RKK- There is Even More to the Story

    May 17, 2021 —
    Just when you thought that the litigation between W. C. English and RKK had no more to give (after all, there have been posts with wisdom from this case here, here, and here), it keeps on giving. A relatively recent opinion from this litigation involved, among other pre-trial motions, motions by English to exclude expert witness testimony. English sought to exclude Defendant CDM Smith, Inc’s expert testimony relating to CDM’s standard of care, the replacement of the bridge deck, English’s failure to fire CDM, and additional contributing factors regarding the spacing of the reinforcing steel. English sought to exclude RKK’s expert opinion regarding English’s owed standard of care vis a vis VDOT. In evaluating these motions, the Court applied the following standard:
    An expert qualified “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify “as to scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge if it will assist the trier of fact. However, such testimony is only admissible if (1) “the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data,” (2) “the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods,” and (3) “the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” [citations excluded here but stated in the opinion]
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Colorado Hotel Neighbors Sue over Construction Plans

    October 02, 2015 —
    Neighbors of the Sky Hotel in Aspen, Colorado, filed suit against the owners “alleging that the construction project will impede access to their units and steal their airspace,” reported the Aspen Daily News Online. The problem, the plaintiff suit alleges, is that the Sky’s plan would close the “east-west alley,” which is also used by the condo complex: “Owners, renters and guests mainly use the alley, which is configured for one-way traffic entering on Durant Avenue and exiting at Original Street, to access their condos in the Chaumont, says the 12-page complaint filed by local attorney Jody Edwards.” The plaintiffs are demanding that the plan be voided or at least require the issues in the suit to be addressed. They are also seeking attorney and other costs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Couple Perseveres to Build Green

    August 27, 2013 —
    Most homeowners don’t want to make their way through the mountain of paperwork required for LEED certification. But according to the Patriot News, Jens and Donna Damgaard aren’t most homeowners. The Damgaards set out to build a LEED-certified home, and struck with it to the end. The Damgaards started out by assembling a team so there wouldn’t be any questions down the road. They also kept going green as a goal, no matter what. Don Park, their contractor, said that “it worked out well. There was never a cost issue.” Jens Damgaas is an attorney in Harrisburg, and he put his skills as a lawyer to work in going through the paperwork, as if he were the projet’s LEED consultant. One further takeaway from the contractor, “everyone wants two-button toilets.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Wall Street’s Palm Beach Foray Fuels Developer Office Rush

    June 28, 2021 —
    First came the pandemic migration of New York financiers to West Palm Beach. Now comes the investor rush for offices to accommodate them. With the likes of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Steve Cohen’s Point72 Asset Management opening outposts in the Florida city, an area once known for snowbirds and retirees has suddenly become hot market for commercial real estate. At the forefront is Manhattan developer Related Cos., which has been accelerating investments in West Palm Beach and now controls about a third of its downtown office stock. It’s a bet that even as Covid restrictions ebb and New York bankers are called back to their office towers, South Florida’s pandemic boom is here to stay. The region, with its relatively lax virus rules, no state income tax and comparatively cheaper homes, last year saw thousands of people flock to enclaves such as West Palm Beach -- a city that for now has just slightly more downtown office space than a single Empire State Building. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Natalie Wong, Bloomberg

    California Court of Appeal Clarifies Intent of Faulty Workmanship Exclusions

    October 26, 2017 —
    Last month, in Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc., 1 a California Court of Appeal clarified the meaning of the frequently asserted j.(5) and j.(6) exclusions of the standard commercial general liability policy; an issue the court deemed one of “first impression” for the state. The court took a close look at how courts nationwide handle the exclusions and relied on the policy language to come to a policyholder-friendly decision. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Casanova may be contacted at tlc@sdvlaw.com