BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer 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


    Reminder: Know Your Contractor Licensing Rules

    Litigation Roundup: “You Can’t Make Me Pay!”

    Good-To-Know Points Regarding (I) Miller Act Payment Bonds And (Ii) Payment Bond Surety Compelling Arbitration

    CGL Policies and the Professional Liabilities Exclusion

    Insurer Obligated to Cover Preventative Remediation of Construction Defects

    Settlement Ends Construction Defect Lawsuit for School

    NY Supreme Court Rules City Not Liable for Defective Sidewalk

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

    Protecting Your Business From Liability Claims Stemming From COVID-19 Exposure

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Ambitious Building Plans in Boston

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: RACHEL CLANCY

    How Does Your Construction Contract Treat Float

    Commercial Development Nearly Quadruples in Jacksonville Area

    Duty to Defend Sorted Between Two Insurers Based Upon Lease and Policies

    2016 California Construction Law Upate

    Condemnation Actions: How Valuable Is Your Evidence of Property Value?

    Insolvency of Primary Carrier Does Not Invoke Excess Coverage

    Construction Mediation Tips for Practitioners and 'Eyes Only' Tips for Construction Mediators

    The Requirement to Post Collateral Under General Agreement of Indemnity Is Real

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/1/24) – Hybrid Work Technologies, AI in Construction and the Market for Office Buildings

    Some Construction Contract Basics- Necessities and Pitfalls

    More Broad-Based Expansion for Construction Industry Expected in 2015

    An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

    Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property

    Texas Legislative Update

    Revel Closing Shows Gambling Is No Sure Thing for Renewal

    West Coast Casualty’s 25th Construction Defect Seminar Has Begun

    Florida Governor Signs Construction Defect Amendments into Law

    Wilke Fleury Celebrates the Addition of Two New Partners

    Florida Duty to Defend a Chapter 558 Right to Repair Notice

    Connecticut Grapples With Failing Concrete Foundations

    CDC Issues Moratorium on Residential Evictions Through 2020

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules in Builder’s Implied Warranty of Habitability Case

    Creeping Incrementalism in Downstream Insurance: Carriers are Stretching Standard CGL Concepts to Untenable Limits

    Elizabeth Lofts Condo Owners Settle with Plumbing Supplier

    Anthony Garasi, Jared Christensen and August Hotchkin are Recognized as Nevada Legal Elite

    The Condo Conundrum: 10 Reasons Why There's a 'For Sale' Shortage in Seattle

    Replacing Coal Plants with Renewables Is Cheaper 80% of the Time

    Counter the Rising Number of Occupational Fatalities in Construction

    Classify Workers Properly to Avoid Expensive Penalties

    Preventing Costly Litigation Through Your Construction Contract

    South African Building Industry in Line for More State Support

    Nevada’s Construction Defect Law

    Direct Contractors In California Should Take Steps Now To Reduce Exposure For Unpaid Wages By Subcontractors

    Yes, Indeedy. Competitive Bidding Not Required for School District Lease-Leasebacks

    How Long Does a Civil Lawsuit Take?

    'Taylor Swift Is an Economic Phenomenon': CE's Q1 2024 Economic Update and Forecast

    Court Holds That Public Entity Can Unilaterally Replace Subcontractor Under California’s Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act

    Pollution Exclusion Found Ambiguous
    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

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Faulty Workmanship Claim

    October 20, 2016 —
    The federal district court found no coverage for the insured developer after water intruded into the homeowners' basements. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cleland Homes, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108030 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 16, 2016). The underlying complaint alleged that the subdivision was designed to create a run off of ground water onto the lots where Cleland built plaintiffs' homes. The design of the subdivision and construction of the homes was defective in that the plaintiffs' homes were situated so that the water table underneath their homes was so high that their basements flooded and damage occurred to the structure of their homes. Cleland was allegedly negligent in designing and/or constructing the homes or negligent in the water drainage plan for the subdivision. 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

    Economic Loss Not Property Damage

    November 04, 2019 —
    The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that the insured subcontractor's economic losses did not amount to covered property damage. Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Capsco Industries, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23949 (5th Cir. Aug 12, 2019). Capsco Industries, Inc. was a subcontractor on the construction of a casino. Capsco subcontracted with Ground Control to install water, sewage, and storm-drain lines. Ground Control was terminated from the project by the general contractor for alleged safety violations and failed drug tests of its employees. Ground Control sued in state court against multiple parties, including Capsco, seeking payment for work on the project. The claims were dismissed on summary judgment because neither party had obtained the required certificates of responsibility from the state, making the parties' contract void. The Mississippi Supreme Court agreed the contract was void, but reversed and remanded for further proceedings based solely on theories of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. While the state case was on remand, Capsco's liability insurers, Greenwich Insurance Company and Indian Harbor Insurance Company, filed a compliant for declaratory judgment in federal district court seeking a declaration that they did not owe a defense or indemnity to Capsco. The defendants were Ground Control, Capsco, the general contractor, and the casino owner. The latter two parties were dismissed. Ground Control counterclaimed for coverage of its claims against Capsco. The district court stayed proceedings until the state court litigation ended. 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

    Environmental and Regulatory Law Update: New Federal and State Rulings

    April 19, 2022 —
    The first quarter of 2022 has yielded a number of decisions, reversals and agency adjustments worth note. FEDERAL CIRCUIT U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – Food & Water Watch v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission On March 11, 2022, the court decided the FERC case. On December 19, 2019, the Commission issued a Certificate to Tennessee Gas Pipeline and determined that a “modest expansion” and upgrade of the existing 11,000-mile natural gas pipeline would have no significant environmental impact. However, one of the Commissioners filed a partial dissent, arguing that the Commission’s treatment of the climate change impacts was inadequate. A petition for review was filed, and now the court has decided that the Commission erred in not accounting for the indirect effects of the expansion, namely the downstream emissions of greenhouse gas generated by the pipeline’s delivery of the gas to its customers. Consequently, NEPA’s requirement that a rigorous environmental assessment be made before the authorization was granted was violated. However, the court decided against vacating the Commission’s orders, which would have had a “disruptive effect” on the project which is, or soon will be, operational. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    And the Cyber-Beat Goes On. Yet Another Cyber Regulatory Focus for Insurers

    April 15, 2015 —
    Regulators and government agencies are sharpening their focus on the issues surrounding cyber risk. The number of pronouncements are too numerous to recite in a single client alert but the overarching message is clear – be prepared or be subject to attack. Attacks not only will come from hackers, customers, consumers and, ultimately the plaintiffs’ bar, but the regulators themselves. Vulnerability lies not only with cyber attacked companies but increasingly with the companies’ officers and directors who fail to adequately safeguard data. On March 26, 2015, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) announced that it would be expanding its information technology examination procedures to focus on cyber risk. This effort was a follow-up to its February 8, 2015 announcement of new cyber assessments (See "Not Just Another Client Alert about Cyber-Risk and Effective Cybersecurity Insurance Regulatory Guidance," March 24, 2015). Not to be outdone, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) proposed a comprehensive and mandatory filing for property casualty insurers that would give regulators a full range of information and data on cyber risk exposures issued by carriers in the insurance market. This proposal comes on the heels of President Obama’s proposal, just two months ago, to create the Cyber Threat Intelligent Integration Center (CTIIC), a new federal agency designed to fight cyber attacks, provide collaboration and encourage information sharing between the Federal government and private industry. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert Ansehl, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Ansehl may be contacted at ansehlr@whiteandwilliams.com

    Chicago Cubs Agree to Make Wrigley Field ADA Improvements to Settle Feds' Lawsuit

    December 03, 2024 —
    Major League Baseball’s Chicago Cubs have entered into a settlement with the U.S. Dept. of Justice over renovations to Wrigley Field, federal and Cubs officials announced Oct. 31. As part of the settlement, the team agreed to update Wrigley Field with more accessibility options for people with disabilities. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, ENR
    Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com

    “But it’s 2021!” Service of Motion to Vacate Via Email Found Insufficient by the Eleventh Circuit

    June 21, 2021 —
    While we are all getting used to the “new normal” of working remotely and relying on emails for almost all communications, a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit provides arbitration practitioners with a stark reminder – the “notice” requirements of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) will be strictly enforced and providing notice of a motion to vacate via email may not qualify as proper service. In O'Neal Constructors, LLC v. DRT Am., LLC, 991 F.3d 1376 (11th Cir. 2021), O’Neal Constructors, LLC (O’Neal) and DRT America (DRT) entered into a contract containing an arbitration provision. Following a dispute, the parties went to arbitration and, on January 7, 2019, the panel issued an award requiring DRT to pay O’Neal a total of $1,415,193. The amount awarded to O’Neal consisted of two parts: $765,102 for the underlying contract dispute and $650,090 for reimbursement of O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees. While DRT paid O’Neal the first portion of the award, DRT refused to pay the portion that related to O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees. On April 4, 2019, as a result of DRT’s refusal to pay O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees, O’Neal filed a motion to confirm the award in Georgia state court (which was subsequently removed to the Northern District of Georgia). The next day, in a separate action, DRT filed a motion to vacate the attorneys’ fees portion of the award and, that same night, DRT’s counsel emailed O’Neal’s counsel a “courtesy copy” of DRT’s memorandum in support of the motion to vacate. A few weeks later, on April 30, 2019 (i.e., more than three months after the award was issued), DRT served O’Neal (via U.S. Marshall) with a copy of the motion to vacate. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin Fortescue, White and Williams
    Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com

    Minnesota Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade for the Second Time

    May 02, 2022 —
    SAINT PAUL, Mn. — The Minnesota Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) today released preliminary findings from the 2022 Report Card for Minnesota's Infrastructure, with 10 categories of infrastructure receiving an overall grade of a 'C', meaning Minnesota's infrastructure is in mediocre condition. Minnesota has taken steps to make its infrastructure network more sustainable to withstand increasingly severe weather, but additional steps must be taken as the state's infrastructure is aging. Funding has been limited for systems throughout the state, particularly for surface transportation networks, and local and state funding must be increased to bring these critical systems up to speed. Civil engineers graded aviation (B), bridges (C), dams (C), drinking water (C-), energy (C), parks (B-), ports (C-), roads (D+), transit (C-) and wastewater (C). "The ASCE report card serves as an important benchmark for where our infrastructure currently stands and lays out how we can make improvements," said Sen. Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul. "Knowing that these systems play such a crucial role in economic progress and the safety of Minnesotan families, we have made infrastructure a topline issue and must continue to do so to secure a prosperous future here in Minnesota." ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    NYC Building Explosion Kills Two After Neighbor Reports Gas Leak

    March 12, 2014 —
    Fifteen minutes after a New York City resident reported the pervasive smell of gas in her East Harlem neighborhood, a massive explosion destroyed two buildings, killing two people and injuring at least 18. Utility workers arrived too late. The explosion at 1644 and 1646 Park Ave., near 116th Street, reported about 9:30 a.m., was heard miles away and turned into a five-alarm fire. Windows were blown out as far as 10 blocks away, and cars across the street were wrecked. The blast sent debris onto adjacent elevated train tracks, halting commuter rail service in and out of Grand Central Terminal. Minor wounds were too numerous to count, said Frank Gribbon, a spokesman for the New York City Fire Department. “This is a tragedy of the worst kind,” Mayor Bill de Blasio said during a news conference near the scene. He said residents are still missing from the buildings, which had a total of 15 units, and crews would search for them when the fire is extinguished. Ms. Kaske may be contacted at mkaske@bloomberg.net; Mr. Goldman may be contacted at hgoldman@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Kaske and Henry Goldman, Bloomberg