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


    Appeals Court Overruled Insured as Additional Insured on Subcontractor’s Commercial General Liability Policy

    Study Finds Construction Cranes Vulnerable to Hacking

    Why Financial Advisers Still Hate Reverse Mortgages

    A Survey of New Texas Environmental and Regulatory Laws Enacted in the 88th Session (Updated)

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

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

    JD Supra’s 2017 Reader’s Choice Awards

    Nebraska Joins the Ranks—No CGL Coverage for Faulty Work

    Housing Starts in U.S. Beat 1 Million Pace for Second Month

    Understand the Dispute Resolution Provision You Are Agreeing To

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California FAIR Plan Limited to Coverage Provided by Statutory Fire Insurance Policy

    Need to Cover Yourself for “Crisis” Changes on a Job Site? Try These Tips (guest post)

    Collapse of Breezeway Attached to Building Covered

    Florida Condos Bet on Americans Making 50% Down Payments

    Quick Note: Submitting Civil Remedy Notice

    U.S. Stocks Fluctuate Near Record After Housing Data

    Louisiana Politicians Struggle on Construction Bills, Hospital Redevelopment

    Coffee Beans, Mars and the 50 States: Civil Code 1542 Waivers and Latent Defects

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

    Business Interruption, Food Spoilage Claims Resulting from Off Premise Power Failure Denied

    Appellate Court Reinforces When the Attorney-Client Relationship Ends for Purposes of “Continuous Representation” Tolling Provision of Legal Malpractice Statute of Limitations

    Federal Judge Refuses to Limit Coverage and Moves Forward with Policyholder’s Claims Against Insurer and Broker

    Flying Solo: How it Helps My Construction Clients

    Not so Fast! How Does Revoking Acceleration of a Note Impact the Statute of Limitations?

    How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?

    “Time Is Money!” In Construction and This Is Why There Is a Liquidated Damages Provision

    Flexible Seattle Off-Ramp Would Retain Shape in Quake

    Texas Supreme Court: Breach of Contract Not Required to Prevail on Statutory Bad Faith Claim

    Tennessee Court of Appeals Holds Defendant Has the Burden of Offering Alternative Measure of Damages to Prove that Plaintiff’s Measure of Damages is Unreasonable

    Drywall Originator Hopes to Sell in Asia

    Making the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive, Part 2

    Five-Year Peak for Available Construction Jobs

    Pollution Exclusion Found Ambiguous

    The Golden State Commits to Going Green – Why Contractors Will be in High Demand to Build the State’s Infrastructure

    Jury's Verdict for Loss Caused by Collapse Overturned

    Traub Lieberman Partners Lisa Rolle, Erin O’Dea, and Nicole Verzillo Win Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

    New York Team Secures Appellate Win on Behalf of National Home Improvement Chain

    N.J. Governor Signs Bill Expanding P3s

    Top 10 OSHA Violations For The Construction Industry In 2023

    Navigating the Hurdles of Florida Construction Defect Lawsuits

    When to use Arbitration to Resolve Construction Disputes

    North Carolina Soil & Groundwater Case to be Heard by U.S. Supreme Court

    The “Program Accessibility” Exception for Public Entities Under the ADA

    Insured's Collapse Claim Survives Summary Judgment

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “How Bad Is It?”

    Apartment Boom in Denver a Shortcut Around Condo Construction Defect Suits?

    No Coverage for Additional Insured

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    New American Home Construction Nears Completion Despite Obstacles
    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

    New Insurance Case: Owners'​ Insurance Barred in Reimbursement Action against Tenant

    April 17, 2019 —
    The Western Heritage Ins. Co. v. Frances Todd, Inc. (2019 Cal.App. LEXIS 299 / 2019 WL 1450731) case has potential implications for insurance carriers, policyholders, condominium associations, unit owners, landlords and tenants. The case involves a fire at a commercial condominium complex (the “Association”). The Association’s CC&Rs required the Association to purchase a master fire insurance policy for the benefit of the Association and owners, with a waiver of subrogation endorsement that stated the insurance company could not seek reimbursement from the Association, its officers, owners or occupants of the units in the event of a covered fire. The CC&Rs also prohibited individual owners from obtaining their own fire insurance. The Association purchased the required fire insurance policy from Western Heritage Insurance Company (“Western Heritage”). One of the owner’s tenants, Frances Todd, Inc. (“Frances Todd”), allegedly caused a fire that damaged several units. Although the unit owner was covered as an additional named insured under the Western Heritage fire policy, the tenant, Frances Todd, was not. Western Heritage paid for the common area fire damage caused by Francis Todd, and then sued Frances Todd in a subrogation action to recover the amounts paid. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason M. Adams, Gibbs Giden
    Mr. Adams may be contacted at jadams@gibbsgiden.com

    Builders Seek to Modify Scaffold Law

    June 28, 2013 —
    New York’s scaffold law dates back to 1885 and requires contractors and building owners to take measures to protect worker from falls through “proper protection.” And although the law is more than 125 years old, Lou Colettie of the Building Trades Employers Association clams that the law “is going to destroy the construction industry.” On the other side, a former director of the NYC Central Labor Council says that builders want to get rid of the law because of “greed.” The New York Daily News notes that when workers using scaffolds or ladders are injured, the contractor must prove the site was safe. According to the claims of the building industry, this would let workers get settlements if their injuries were their own fault, such as working while intoxicated or failing to observe their employer’s safety procedures. A bill is currently working its way through the New York legislature that would make the employee’s actions relevant in an injury lawsuit. There have been past unsuccessful attempts to repeal the law, this year opponents are pushing to just amend it. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Mezzanine Financing

    March 29, 2017 —
    Construction mezzanine lending is on the rise and more development deals are getting done with a capital stack that includes mezzanine debt in addition to the traditional components of sponsor equity and senior mortgage debt. Below are important issues and concepts to bear in mind when structuring the financing of a construction project that includes a mezzanine debt component. Funding Sequence Funding Sequence When will the proceeds of the mezzanine loan be advanced? In some instances, the mezzanine loan proceeds will be advanced only after all of the borrower’s equity has been contributed to the construction of the project. In other instances, the borrower’s equity and the mezzanine loan proceeds go in either pari passu or simultaneously at another ratio. If the equity is not entirely contributed in advance, the mezzanine lender may require that the uncontributed equity be held by the mezzanine lender or held in a pledged account. The mezzanine lender may also further mitigate the risk of non-funding of the equity by requiring an equity funding guaranty (as discussed below). Additionally, when will the mezzanine loan proceeds be advanced in relation to the senior mortgage loan proceeds? Will the entire mezzanine loan be advanced prior to any senior mortgage loan advance or will they be advanced pari passu? Depending on the business deal, the mezzanine loan agreement will need to reflect how and when the equity, the mezzanine debt, and the mortgage debt will be advanced. Reprinted courtesy of Tim Davis, White and Williams LLP and Steven Coury, White and Williams LLP Mr. Davis may be contacted at davist@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Coury may be contacted at courys@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Not a Waiver for All: Maryland Declines to Apply Subrogation Waiver to Subcontractors

    September 23, 2024 —
    In Lithko Contr., LLC v. XL Ins. Am. Inc., No. 31, Sept. Term, 2023, 2024 Md. LEXIS 256, the Supreme Court of Maryland considered whether a tenant who contracted for the construction of a large warehouse facility waived its insurer’s rights to subrogation against subcontractors when it agreed to waive subrogation against the general contractor. The court ultimately decided that the unambiguous language of the subrogation waiver in the development agreement between the parties did not extend to subcontractors. The court also held that the tenant’s requirement that subcontracts include a subrogation waiver did not, in this case, impose a project-wide waiver on all parties. The court, however, found that the requirement that the subcontracts include a similar, but not identical, waiver provision rendered the subcontract’s waiver clauses ambiguous and remanded the case to the lower court to determine if the parties to the development agreement – i.e., Duke Baltimore LLC (“Duke”) and Amazon.com.dedc, LLC (“Amazon”) – intended that the waiver clause in the subcontracts covered claims against subcontractors. This case involved roof and structural damage to a warehouse in Baltimore, Maryland that Duke owned. In March 2014, Amazon entered into a development agreement with Duke for the construction of the warehouse. Amazon also agreed to subsequently lease the warehouse from Duke. Although Amazon essentially owned and/or developed the project, the development agreement identified Duke as “Landlord” and Amazon as “Tenant.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers

    August 15, 2022 —
    ACS is very honored and pleased to announce nine members of our firm were awarded the distinction of top attorneys in Washington. Our blog articles usually cover Construction Legal News, but we feel this is a newsworthy accolade to be shared with friends and clients. To become candidates to receiving the Super Lawyer nomination, lawyers are nominated by a peer or identified by research. After completing this first step in the process, Super Lawyers’ research department analyzes 12 indicators, such as experience, honors/awards, verdicts/settlements, and others. As for the third step, there is a peer evaluation by practice area. Finally, for step four, candidates are grouped into four firm-size categories. In other words, solo and small firm lawyers are compared only with other solo and small firm lawyers, and large firm lawyers are compared with other large firm lawyers. The process is very selective and only 5 percent of the total lawyers in Washington are nominated as Super Lawyers. 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

    Excessive Corrosion Cause of Ohio State Fair Ride Accident

    August 10, 2017 —
    The manufacturer of the Fire Ball ride at the Ohio State Fair claims that excessive corrosion “led to the accident that killed a teenager and injured seven others…in July.” According to a statement by KMG International, reported by ABC News, “Corrosion on the interior of the support beam reduced the beam's thickness, which led to the accident at the fair.” Furthermore, “The company said it conducted an investigation into the incident, which included a visit to the scene and a review of video footage of the incident. The company also conducted a metallurgical inspection of the ride.” A U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) spokesperson said “it is aware of 22 deaths associated with amusement attractions since 2010, including Wednesday's incident, but excluding water park and work-related fatalities.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Paul Tetzloff Elected As Newmeyer & Dillion Managing Partner

    June 03, 2019 —
    Newmeyer & Dillion LLP, a prominent business and real estate law firm, selected Paul Tetzloff as the firm's Managing Partner. His term began on January 1, 2019. A business litigator, Tetzloff will now oversee the firm's strategic plan and manage the firm's day-to-day business affairs. "The Firm is incredibly fortunate to have Paul stepping into the role as Managing Partner. His energy, intelligence, leadership, and drive make him uniquely qualified to lead this Firm for years to come," said former Managing Partner Jeff Dennis. "I am excited to watch where the Firm is headed – we have such an amazing opportunity to continue to develop to even greater heights, and Paul will be a huge part of making that happen." Active in his community, Tetzloff sits on the board for HomeAid Orange County and the Marine Raider Association. Tetzloff is succeeding Dennis, who served in the role from 2012 to 2018. "Jeff was our managing partner for seven years and he did an outstanding job. We owe Jeff a debt of gratitude for his service," said Tetzloff of his predecessor. "I'm looking forward to continuing to build on the groundwork laid to help the firm reach new levels in the years to come." Dennis' leadership allowed the firm to grow substantially under his tenure, including opening a Las Vegas, Nevada office and establishing thriving practice areas throughout various industries. Dennis will focus his energy on overseeing the firm's growing Privacy and Data Security practice. Paul Tetzloff paul.tetzloff@ndlf.com Practice Areas Business Litigation Construction Litigation Real Estate Litigation About Newmeyer & Dillion For almost 35 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

    December 30, 2013 —
    The case of Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Corp., 2013 WL 452374 (D. Colo. February 6, 2013) is instructive as an example of both the confusion and resulting escalation of litigation that can result from a lack of clarity in settlement negotiations. This is particularly true where parties settle outside of their insurance coverage, and/or without notifying their insurer(s), which have denied coverage. The case involved coverage litigation following settlement of a multi-party construction defect case involving the Rivergate multi-family residential development in Durango, Colorado. The condominium owners association sued, among others, the developer (Rivergate Lofts Partners, hereafter “RLP”) and the general contractor (Genex Construction, LLC, hereafter “Genex”). This follow-on case involved the insurers for RLP (“Hartford”) and Genex (“Bituminous”). The coverage dispute was complicated by the Bituminous allegations that Hartford insured Genex in its alleged role as a manager for RLP, as part of Hartford’s insurance of RLP more generally. The underlying facts were that Hartford denied insurance coverage and defense to Genex/Bituminous. The underlying construction defect case went to mediation, with the COA, RLP, and Genex all in attendance with their respective insurer representatives, and coverage counsel. While the evolving facts of that mediation were later disputed as to their motives, intentions, and the contemporaneous knowledge of the parties, the facts reflected in documents were fairly clear. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.
    W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. can be contacted at mann@hhmrlaw.com