BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestration
    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


    Guardrail Maker Defrauded U.S. of $175 Million and Created Hazard, Jury Says

    Navigating the Hurdles of Florida Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Second Circuit Brings Clarity To Scope of “Joint Employer” Theory in Discrimination Cases

    Empire State Building Owners Sue Photographer for Topless Photo Shoot

    Over 70 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Recognized in 4th Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

    The Greenest U.S. Cities & States

    Contractor’s Assignment of Construction Contract to Newly Formed Company Before Company Was Licensed, Not Subject to B&P 7031

    Chapman Glucksman Press Release

    COVID-19 Information and Resources

    Hovnanian Increases Construction Defect Reserves for 2012

    CalOSHA Updates its FAQ on its COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Regulations

    Gene Witkin Celebrates First Anniversary as Member of Ross Hart’s Mediation Team

    Project-Specific Policies and Products-Completed Operations Hazard Extensions

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2022 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

    No Coverage Under Exclusions For Wind and Water Damage

    Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans for Contractors: Lessons From the Past

    Update Relating to SB891 and Bond Claim Waivers

    How Your Disgruntled Client Can Turn Into Your Very Own Car Crash! (and How to Avoid It) (Law Tips)

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Trigger and Allocation

    More Fun with Indemnity and Construction Contracts!

    Motion to Dismiss Insurer's Counterclaim for Construction Defects Is Granted

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/14/24) – Commercial Real Estate AI, Hotel Pipeline Growth, and Housing Market Improvements

    Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions – Changes and Claims

    Quick Note: Subcontractor Payment Bond = Common Law Payment Bond

    Congratulations to San Diego Partner Johnpaul Salem and Senior Associate Scott Hoy for Obtaining a Complete Defense Verdict!

    Construction Law Job Opps and How to Create Them

    Home Improvement in U.S. Slowing or Still Intact -- Which Is It?

    Surge in Home Completions Tamps Down Inflation as Fed Meets

    Mitigating FCRA Risk Through Insurance

    Spearin Doctrine: Alive, Well and Thriving on its 100th Birthday

    Homebuilding Continues to Recover in San Antonio Area

    Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners

    Arizona Court Determines Statute of Limitations Applicable to a Claim for Reformation of a Deed of Trust (and a Related Claim for Declaratory Judgment)

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

    Southern California Super Lawyers Recognizes Four Snell & Wilmer Attorneys As Rising Stars

    Team Temporarily Stabilizes Delaware River Bridge Crack

    Temporary Obstructions Are a Permanent Problem Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

    Congratulations to BWB&O Partner John Toohey and His Fellow Panel Members on Their Inclusion in West Coast Casualty’s 2022 Program!

    Erdogan Vows to Punish Shoddy Builders Ahead of Crucial Election

    Does a Contractor (or Subcontractor) Have to Complete its Work to File a Mechanics Lien

    Burg Simpson to Create Construction Defect Group

    NIBS Consultative Council Issues Moving Forward Report on Healthy Buildings

    Definitions Matter in Illinois: Tenant Held Liable Only for Damage to Apartment Unit

    Court of Appeals Discusses Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in Public Works Contracting

    Failure to Comply with Contract Leaves No Additional Insured Coverage

    Verdict In Favor Of Insured Homeowner Reversed For Improper Jury Instructions

    10 Haight Lawyers Recognized in Best Lawyers in America© 2022 and The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2022

    BWB&O’s Los Angeles Office Obtains Major Victory in Arbitration!

    Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion on Business Risk Exclusions Fails

    Construction Law: Unexpected, Fascinating, Bizarre
    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

    U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts

    June 11, 2014 —
    On June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-awaited decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, Chapter 7 Trustee of Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc., Case No. 12-1200, in which the court confirmed that the power of the nation’s bankruptcy courts to hear and decide cases involving state-created private rights in which the bankruptcy proof of claim process has not been directly invoked, is severely limited by Article III of the Constitution of the United States. The decision in Executive Benefits, while providing some clarity to practitioners and the public following the Court’s June 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), nevertheless will make a substantial portion of bankruptcy litigation matters more cumbersome and potentially more expensive to guide through the bankruptcy system. Clients and practitioners are best advised to hire knowledgeable counsel to help navigate the more complex procedural waters created by this decision. Although the Court in Executive Benefits did resolve a pending procedural question that had dogged practitioners since Stern was decided in 2011, the Court’s decision in Executive Benefits now makes it abundantly clear that many disputes that were previously heard and decided in the nation’s bankruptcy courts can no longer be decided there and must be submitted to the district courts for full de novo review and entry of a final judgment or order. It is difficult to see how this decision will not make bankruptcy litigation more cumbersome and expensive by adding an additional layer of judicial involvement to many matters, notably to fraudulent transfer and other avoidance “claw back” actions that historically have been decided in the bankruptcy courts and used famously in Madoff and other cases as an efficient device for creating value for creditors. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Earl Forte, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Forte may be contacted at fortee@whiteandwilliams.com

    Asbestos Confirmed After New York City Steam Pipe Blast

    July 21, 2018 —
    Asbestos has been found at the site where an underground steam pipe exploded early Thursday morning near the Flatiron building in midtown Manhattan. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eydie Cubarrubia, ENR
    Ms. Cubarrubia may be contacted at cubarrubiae@enr.com

    Defects, Delays and Change Orders

    November 01, 2021 —
    As every construction professional is aware, unexpected events and problems are guaranteed on every large project. Defects, delays and change orders are sure to arise, and depending on how they are dealt with and addressed at the time, they can either have minimal effects on the overall project or they can have drastic, long-term and often costly effects, including but not limited to thousands of dollars in legal fees, increases in insurance premiums and/or years of litigation down the road. There are many reasons why so many large construction projects end up in some type of litigation. Delay claims, construction contract disputes and construction defect lawsuits are so prevalent in certain parts of the country that certain judges designate specific time blocks in their courtrooms for construction cases only—just to deal with the large portions of their case dockets dealing with construction issues at the same time. Reprinted courtesy of Jacob A. Epstein, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Epstein may be contacted at jepstein@haber.law

    Newark Trial Team Obtains Affirmance of Summary Judgment for General Contractor Client

    January 21, 2025 —
    Newark, N.J. (December 31, 2024) - Days after obtaining an Appellate Division victory affirming a “no cause” jury verdict, Newark Partner Afsha Noran and Managing Partner Colin Hackett obtained a second appellate court victory affirming a trial court's dismissal of a complaint against another firm client, a general contractor. The team had previously obtained summary judgment at the trial level on the grounds plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case against the client. The plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment and dismissal of her claim to the Appellate Division. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (6/4/24) – New CRE Litmus Tests, Tech Integration in Real Estate and a Jump in Investor Home Purchases

    July 02, 2024 —
    In our latest roundup, big bank exposure to CRE lending grows, concerns for the construction industry abound, U.S. hotel securitized loans come due, and more! Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Another Way a Mechanic’s Lien Protects You

    September 14, 2020 —
    Here at Construction Law Musings, we have discussed mechanic’s lien law in Virginia on multiple occasions. We have discussed everything from the very picky nature of the perfection and enforcement of these liens to the changes that the Virginia General Assembly periodically makes to these requirements and how to defend against such liens. While the steps taken and content of a Virginia mechanic’s lien will be strictly construed by the Virginia courts, when perfected properly, a mechanic’s lien can and will put you as a construction company seeking payment in a better position than if no lien were recorded. The direct benefit is that you now hold a lien on the property on which you performed work that takes a priority (read will be paid before) any mortgage or other lien on that structure. In other words, if you, the bank, or the owner seeks to sell the property through foreclosure or otherwise, mechanic’s lien holders generally get paid first. While there are exceptions to be explored with an experienced Virginia construction attorney, this is the general rule and the power of a mechanic’s lien. 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

    Motion to Dismiss COVID Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part

    February 06, 2023 —
    The insurer's motion to dismiss the insured's claim for business losses due to COVID-19 was granted in part, denied in part. SRL v Zurich Am. Ins Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210058 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 21, 2022). Excelsior owned and managed the Westin Excelsior Rome, a luxury hotel in Rome. The hotel suffered business income losses with the onset of the pandemic.While the hotel was not forced to close, its bookings decreased to virtually nothing. The Excelsior's complaint alleged that the COVID-19 virus was present in and around the hotel as multiple guests and at least six employees tested positive for COVID-19. It further alleged that the virus attached to interior property and was in the air. Excelsior was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Zurich. The court agreed there was no direct physical loss because no structure suffered damage. Among the coverages under the policy, however, was a "Cancellation of Bookings" provision. Zurich agreed there was coverage under this provision, but argued that Excelsior had already reached its annual limit for Cancellation of Bookings claims. 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

    Texas Supreme Court Holds Anadarko’s $100M Deepwater Horizon Defense Costs Are Not Subject To Joint Venture Liability Limits

    February 27, 2019 —
    Reversing a Texas Court of Appeals decision that allowed Anadarko’s Lloyd’s of London excess insurers to escape coverage for more than $100 million in defense costs incurred in connection with claims from the Deepwater Horizon well blowout, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the insurers’ obligations to pay defense costs under an “energy package” liability policy are not capped by a joint venture coverage limit for “liability” insured. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. et al. v. Houston Casualty Co. et al., No. 16-1013 (Tex. Jan. 25, 2019). While the Lloyd’s of London insurers had agreed to pay Anadarko $37.5 million for damages, they declined to cover $100 million-plus in defense fees, arguing that both Anadarko’s liability and defense expenses are subject to the $37.5 million joint venture limit for “liability” insured. Anadarko asserted that only amounts paid as damages to third parties are subject to that limit. Defense costs, however, are not amounts paid as damages to a third party and, thus, are not a “liability.” Those amounts, therefore, are not subject to the joint venture limit and are instead subject to the policy’s $150 million coverage limit. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of