BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete 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


    MGM Begins Dismantling of the Las Vegas Harmon Tower

    Building Materials Price Increase Clause for Contractors and Subcontractors – Three Options

    Risk Protection: Force Majeure Agreements Take on Renewed Relevance

    Hurricane Ian: Florida Expedites Road Work as Damage Comes Into Focus

    Know Whether Your Course of Business Operations Are Covered Or Excluded By Your Insurance

    New ANSI Requirements for Fireplace Screens

    Hammer & Hand’s Top Ten Predictions for US High Performance Building in 2014

    California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive

    Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

    15 Wilke Fleury Lawyers Recognized in 2020 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    Duty to Defend Triggered by Damage to Other Non-Defective Property

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Utah for Damage Caused By Faulty Workmanship

    Record Keeping—the Devil’s in the Details

    Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

    Pentagon Has Big Budget for Construction in Colorado

    Lakewood Introduced City Ordinance to Battle Colorado’s CD Law

    Hawaii Federal District Court Compels Appraisal

    Illinois Attorney General Warns of Home Repair Scams

    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Lets Broad General Release Stand in SB 800 Case

    Insurance for Large Construction Equipment Such as a Crane

    Why Employees Are Taking Ownership of Their Architecture Firms

    Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Preclude Coverage

    Is the Event You Are Claiming as Unforeseeable Delay Really Unforeseeable?

    Houses Can Still Make Cents: Illinois’ Implied Warranty of Habitability

    Notice of Claim Sufficient to Invoke Coverage

    School District Settles Over Defective Athletic Field

    CLB Recommends Extensive Hawaii Contractor License Changes

    Drowning of Two Boys Constitutes One Occurrence

    When is a Residential Subcontractor not Subject to the VCPA? Read to Find Out

    GAO Sustains Unsupported Past Performance Evaluation and Unequal Discussion Bid Protest

    A UK Bridge That Is a Lesson on How to Build Infrastructure

    Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

    New York Court of Appeals Addresses Choice of Law Challenges

    BWB&O Expands to North San Diego

    Delays in Filing Lead to Dismissal in Moisture Intrusion Lawsuit

    Cliffhanger: $451M Upgrade for Treacherous Stretch of Highway 1 in British Columbia

    GE to Repay $87 Million for Scaled-Back Headquarters Plan

    Enforceability Of Subcontract “Pay-When-Paid” Provisions – An Important Update

    Call Me Maybe? . . . Don’t Waive Your Rights Under the Right to Repair Act’s Prelitigation Procedures

    California Supreme Court Holds that Requirement of Prejudice for Late Notice Defense is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State for Choice of Law Analysis

    Nationwide Immigrant Strike May Trigger Excusable Delay and Other Contract Provisions

    Settling with Some, But Not All, of the Defendants in a Construction Defect Case

    Florida Death Toll Rises by Three, Reaching 27 as Search Resumes

    The Future Looks Bright for Construction in 2015

    New Jersey Legislation Would Bar Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause in Homeowners' Policies

    Construction of World's Tallest Building to Resume With New $1.9B Contract for Jeddah Tower

    Empire State Building Owners Sue Photographer for Topless Photo Shoot

    South Caroline Holds Actual Cash Value Can Include Depreciation of Labor Costs

    WATCH: 2023 Construction Economic Update and Forecast
    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

    General Contractors Must Plan to Limit Liability for Subcontractor Injury

    May 18, 2011 —

    It takes more than a hard hat, but safety checks, a good policy and a smart contract might save you some problems.If you are a general contractor, you will want to pay close attention to this article. A new Washington appellate decision showcases a general contractor’s liability to subcontractors who are injured on the job, when security barriers fail. But can a general limit this liability? Will its contract help?

    In Wrought Corporation, Inc., Appellant V. Mario Interiano (quick note: this opinion is unpublished, but we are here to talk about an issue that was not determined on appeal – WISHA compliance), a subcontractor was injured when a security barrier failed and he fell into an elevator shaft.

    A jury awarded a $1.56 million verdict against the general contractor, and the court of appeals affirmed on the basis that the general contractor has a non-delegable duty to ensure compliance with the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973, codified under RCW 49.17 (WISHA).

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

    Make Your Business Great Again: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    April 20, 2017 —
    There is a lot of uncertainty regarding how President Trump’s immigration and trade policies will affect the construction industry. In his Construction Today article, Partner Steven Cvitanovic discusses how businesses can remain competitive and profitable during this period of uncertainty, including updating contract documents, recruiting and retaining employees, and increasing cybersecurity efforts. “If you do not know when your contract documents were last updated, it’s probably been too long,” writes Cvitanovic. “Unlike wine, contract documents only get worse with age.” Cvitanovic advises teams to sit down together and review contracts to see if they still meet the firm’s needs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com

    Third Circuit Limits Pennsylvania’s Kvaerner Decision; Unexpected and Unintended Injury May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under Pennsylvania Law

    December 22, 2019 —
    The Third Circuit ruled on Friday that differing “occurrence” definitions can have materially different meanings in the context of whether product defect claims constitute an “occurrence” triggering coverage under general liability insurance policies. The Court held in Sapa Extrusions, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, that product claims against Sapa may be covered under policies that define an “occurrence” as an accident resulting in bodily injury or property damage “neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.” However, the Court affirmed that coverage was not triggered under policies lacking the “expected” or “intended” limitation, reasoning that, under those policies, there was no question that the intentional manufacturing of Sapa’s product was too foreseeable to amount to an “accident.” The coverage dispute arose from an underlying action in which Marvin, a window manufacturer, alleged that, between 2000 and 2010, Sapa sold it roughly 28 million defective aluminum window extrusions. Marvin alleged that the extrusions, which are metal frames that hold glass window panes in place, began to oxidize and break down shortly after they were installed, causing Marvin to incur substantial costs to fix and replace them. Marvin sued Sapa in 2010 in Minnesota federal court, and the parties settled in 2013. Sapa sought coverage for the settlement from its eight general liability insurers for the period implicated by Marvin’s allegations. The insurers denied coverage and Sapa brought suit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Allegations that Carrier Failed to Adequately Investigate Survive Demurrer

    July 30, 2014 —
    The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of a complaint alleging bad faith for the insurer's failure to adequately investigate the claim. Maslo v. Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins., 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 564 (Cal. Ct. App. June 27, 2014). The insured was injured in an auto accident caused by an uninsured motorist. The insured sought policy limits of $250,000 from the insurer. In response, the insurer demanded arbitration. The arbitrator awarded $164,120.91. The insured sued, alleging the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleged the insured was not at fault. The police report found that the uninsured motorist was the sole cause of the accident. The insured provided the police report and medical records to the insurer. When the insured demanded the $250,000 policy limits, the insurer did not respond. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

    September 01, 2011 —

    This is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog.  Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.

    In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.

    The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

    Study Finds Construction Cranes Vulnerable to Hacking

    May 20, 2019 —
    When securing a jobsite against malicious hackers, most go to protect computer files, and few look up and worry about the tower cranes. But many cranes—whether tower, mobile or industrial—can be remotely run via radio wireless controllers, a useful feature for when operators need a clearer view of the load from the ground. Unfortunately, these wireless signals are vulnerable to hijacking, according to a study released earlier this year by security research firm Trend Micro. It found that the radio signals these crane controllers use are not encrypted over the air in any way, and can be easily intercepted and spoofed using off-the-shelf equipment and a basic knowledge of electronics and radio engineering. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, ENR
    Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com

    North Carolina, Tennessee Prepare to Start Repairing Helene-damaged Interstates

    October 07, 2024 —
    Damage from Hurricane Helene to interstates between North Carolina and Tennessee includes washed-out roads and bridges, landslides and extensive flooding—creating a long list of repair work needed for state transportation agencies as they prepare to rebuilding critical highways across the Appalachian Mountains. Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lacey, Engineering News-Record Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Avoiding Construction Defect “Nightmares” in Florida

    November 27, 2013 —
    Describing it as a “nightmare,” Larry Tolchinsky writes about construction defects at the Willowbrook condominium complex in Florida. Writing on the website of his firm, Sackrin & Tolchinsky, Mr. Tolchinsky gives the history of the Willowbrook condo case, in which condo owners suffered problems with water intrusion and subsequent damage to their units. The builder has agreed to make repairs, though they are still suing owners who put up a website critical of the company. Mr. Tolchinsky notes that this is not “the usual way things happen in construction defect lawsuits,” and he gives the usual process. Under Florida law, homeowners must first notify those responsible of a “problem and its need for repair.” After this notice, the homeowner “will know within about 6 weeks’ time after sending that formal notice what the contractor’s position is going to be on things.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of