BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield 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


    Recycling Our Cities, One Building at a Time

    BOO! Running From Chainsaw Wielding Actor then Falling is an Inherent Risk of a Haunted Attraction

    Legal Risks of Green Building

    Suspend the Work, but Don’t Get Fired

    Chinese Billionaire Sues Local Governments Over Project Payment

    City of Sacramento Approves Kings NBA Financing Plan

    43% of U.S. Homes in High Natural Disaster Risk Areas

    "Repair Work" Endorsements and Punch List Work

    The Importance of Preliminary Notices on Private Works Projects

    Contractor Sues Supplier over Defective Products

    Ambiguous Application Questions Preclude Summary Judgment on Rescission Claim

    Las Vegas Harmon Hotel to be Demolished without Opening

    Giant Floating Solar Flowers Offer Hope for Coal-Addicted Korea

    Why’d You Have To Say That?

    What Are The Most Commonly Claimed Issues In Construction Defect Litigation?

    Want to Stay Up on Your Mechanic’s Lien Deadlines? Write a Letter or Two

    Return-to-Workplace Checklist: Considerations and Emerging Best Practices for Employers

    Mitigate Construction Risk Through Use of Contingency

    Lake Texoma, Texas Condo Case may go to Trial

    Fifth Circuit -- Damage to Property Beyond Insured’s Product/Work Not Precluded By ‘Your Product/Your Work Exclusion’

    Take Advantage of AI and Data Intelligence in Construction

    Policing Those Subcontractors: It Might Take Extra Effort To Be An Additional Insured

    Natural Hydrogen May Seem New in Town, but It’s Been Here All Along

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Close Call?”

    Navigating Abandonment of a Construction Project

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

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    'There Was No Fighting This Fire,' California Survivor Says

    Storm Breaches California River's Levee, Thousands Evacuate

    California Appellate Court Confirms: Additional Insureds Are First-Class Citizens

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

    Lorelie S. Masters Nominated for Best in Insurance & Reinsurance for the Women in Business Law Awards 2021

    That’s Common Knowledge! Failure to Designate an Expert Witness in a Professional Negligence Case is Not Fatal Where “Common Knowledge” Exception Applies

    Construction Bidding for Success

    When Does a Claim Against an Insurance Carrier for Failing to Defend Accrue?

    Construction Defects Checklist

    Mexico City Metro Collapse Kills 24 After Neighbors’ Warnings

    Construction Law Firm Welin, O'Shaughnessy + Scheaf Merging with McDonald Hopkins LLC

    Look to West Africa for the Future of Green Architecture

    Earthquake Hits Mid-Atlantic Region; No Immediate Damage Reports

    Partners Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe Secure Seventh Circuit Win for Insurer Client in Late Notice Dispute

    Construction Defect Dispute Governed by Contract Disputes Act not yet Suited to being a "Suit"

    Work without Permits may lead to Problems Later

    RCW 82.32.655 Tax Avoidance Statute/Speculative Building

    The Texas Supreme Court Limits the Use of the Economic Loss Rule

    Explore Legal Immigration Options for Construction Companies

    Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

    Courts Will Not Rewrite Your Post-Loss Property Insurance Obligations

    Missouri Asbestos Litigation Reform: New Bill Seeks to Establish Robust Disclosure Obligations

    McCarthy Workers Test Fall-Protection Harnesses Designed to Better Fit Women
    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. Leveraging 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

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    August 11, 2011 —

    In Mosser Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., No. 09-4449 (6th Cir. July 14, 2011)(unpublished), claimant project owner Port Clinton contracted with insured general contractor Mosser for the construction of a building.  Following completion, Port Clinton sued Mosser for breach of contract seeking damages because of physical injury to the project occurring after completion resulting from defective backfill material that settled improperly.

    Mosser’s CGL insurer Travelers denied a defense and Mosser filed suit against Travelers seeking a declaratory judgment. Mosser and Travelers filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the supplier of the backfill material?Gerken?qualified as a subcontractor for purposes of the subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion—exclusion l.—for property damage to or arising out of Mosser’s completed work.   Mosser had purchased the backfill material from Gerken pursuant to a purchase order specifying that Gerken was to supply Mosser with an industry standard grade of backfill for use in the Port Clinton project.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

    Liquidating Agreements—Bridging the Privity Gap for Subcontractors

    September 03, 2015 —
    What is a subcontractor to do when the owner has demanded additional work, but has refused to pay for it? Typically, a subcontractor cannot sue the owner because the subcontractor doesn’t have a contract with the owner. Perhaps the subcontractor and general contractor should enter into a liquidating agreement through which the general contractor can pursue the claim on behalf of the subcontractor. Liquidating agreements bridge the privity gap between owners and subcontractors who sustain damages because of the others actions. Liquidating agreements or pass-through agreements grant the general contractor a release of its liability to the subcontractor after the general contractor prosecutes the subcontractor’s pass-through claim against the owner and gives the subcontractor any recovery. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    One Nation, Under Renovation

    November 07, 2022 —
    In late 2019, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot announced a landmark investment in some of the city’s poorest neighborhoods. Invest South/West would direct $1.4 billion in total, including $750 million in public funds, to redevelop properties across the city’s South and West Sides. Focused on 10 specific neighborhoods, the program’s first projects broke ground in August and September. Teams of workers will turn a firehouse into a culinary hub and event space; a stately Art Deco bank is set to be converted into an art space that will anchor an attached mixed-use development. Another former bank, in Humboldt Park, will be renovated into Latino-owned commercial offices, an entrepreneurial incubator space, and a Latino cultural center, as well as housing. These reuse projects aim to do more than fill the gaps of Chicago’s legendary vacant-property crisis: In reanimating shuttered historic buildings, the initiative aims to restore the economies of commercial corridors that were victims of destructive mid-20th-century “urban renewal” initiatives. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Zach Mortice, Bloomberg

    More Regulations for Federal Contractors

    October 08, 2014 —
    The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has been busy. In the last several weeks, the OFCCP has proposed regulations that will require contractors and subcontractors to provide summary compensation data and another rule prohibiting federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against employees or applicants who inquire about, discuss, or disclose their own compensation or the compensation of another employee or applicant. Equal Pay Report The OFCCP has proposed Summary Compensation regulations which would require federal contractors and subcontractors with more than 100 employees to “provide summary data on the compensation paid to employees by sex, race, ethnicity, specified job categories, and other relevant data points.” Covered employers would have to submit three types of information: 1. the total number of workers within a specific EEO-1 job category by race, ethnicity and sex; Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

    Court Calls Lease-Leaseback Project What it is: A Design-Bid-Build Project

    August 19, 2015 —
    First there was “Prince.” Then there was “The Artist Formerly Known as Prince.” Then there was “The Artist Formerly Known as Prince (Because he Changed His Name to a Symbol), But Then Realized That No One Could Pronounce the Symbol (and What Good is a Symbol if Everyone Has to Wave Their Hands Wildly at You to Get Your Attention or Scream ‘Hey You!’), and So Changed His Name Back to Prince Again.” Whatever name (or symbol) he was going by, everyone knew him as the guy who told us to party like it was 1999 (when 1999 still seemed like the distant future), who sang about a girl with a “pocket full of horses” (which totally flew past my junior high school brain at the time), and gave us such great metaphors as “if the elevator tries to bring you down, go crazy, punch a higher floor!” Like Prince or his symbol, sometimes it doesn’t matter what label you put on something when everyone knows what that something is. In law, we call it looking at the “substance” rather than its “form.” And, in the next case, Davis v. Fresno Unified School District, the California Court of Appeals for the Fifth District made quick work of a purported “lease-leaseback” project – a project delivery method available to school districts whereby a school district leases property it owns to a developer for a minimum of $1, who in turns builds a school facility on the site and leases the facility and the site back to the school district, who in turn takes ownership of the facility and site at the end of the lease – and called it for what it was: a run-of-the-mill “design-bid-build” project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    French Laundry Spices Up COVID-19 Business Interruption Debate

    April 20, 2020 —
    On March 26, 2020, Michelin-rated Napa Valley restaurants, French Laundry and Bouchon Bistro, and their celebrity chef, Thomas Keller, filed the second known coronavirus-related declaratory judgment (DJ) lawsuit by a restaurant. The restaurants filed their DJ against Hartford Fire Insurance Company just seven days after Napa County issued a Shelter at Home Order.1 Chef Keller’s suit comes on the heels of the first such suit by a restaurant seeking to recover business income losses, filed by iconic New Orleans French Quarter restaurant Oceana Grill2 on March 17, just four days after the Louisiana governor issued an order prohibiting gatherings of more than 250 people. As local governments seek to protect their citizens and prevent an onslaught of cases in area hospitals, they are issuing various “stay home,” “shelter at home,” and similar orders to force social distancing and to help flatten the curve of the growth in COVID-19 cases. Restaurants nationwide are especially hard hit by these orders, as many of these orders contain size limitations on gatherings, which have required that restaurants and bars limit capacity (as in the March 13th Louisiana order). Other such orders require non-essential businesses to “cease all activities in the County” (as in the Napa County Shelter at Home order). The Napa County order does not exempt restaurants as “essential businesses,” except when providing food for take-out or delivery. Other orders, still, directly address restaurants and require them to cease allowing public consumption of food and beverages (as in the subsequent, March 17th Louisiana order). Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Ms. McDonald may be contacted at mam@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Owner Bankruptcy: What’s a Contractor to Do?

    February 28, 2018 —
    Bankruptcy of the owner or developer of a real estate construction project can be very unsettling to contractors. But a declaration of bankruptcy by the developer, in and of itself, does not constitute a breach of contract such that the contractor can stop working. Contract provisions providing that the contract is terminated if a party becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy are generally unenforceable. Partially-performed construction contracts are executory contracts, meaning that the obligations of the parties to the contract have not yet been fully performed. The Bankruptcy Code allows a bankruptcy trustee (in a Chapter 7 dissolution case) or the debtor-in-possession (in a Chapter 11 reorganization case) either to assume or to reject an executory contract. A debtor-in-possession has until the time of the confirmation of its plan of reorganization to decide if it will assume or reject the contract. The contractor may ask the bankruptcy court to require the debtor-in-possession to make a decision on the contract sooner, but the court will most likely give the debtor-in-possession a fair amount of time to make the decision. Reprinted courtesy of Troy R. Covington and Stephen M. Parham, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Covington may be contacted at sparham@bloomparham.com Mr. Parham may be contacted at tcovington@bloom-law.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Why Biden’s Infrastructure Plan Is a Green Jobs Plan

    April 26, 2021 —
    “Once you put capital money to work, jobs are created.” These are not the words of President Joe Biden, announcing his administration’s infrastructure plan in Pittsburgh on Wednesday. Nor were they the words of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, standing on a train platform to announce expanded service, or of any of the administration’s economists charged with touting the virtues of the $2.25 trillion spending plan. It was Michael Morris, then-CEO of Ohio utility American Electric Power, who uttered them on an investor call a decade ago. AEP was fighting an Environmental Protection Agency proposal to reduce mercury and other pollutants from power plants, citing the expense of creating jobs to install new scrubbers on smokestacks or build cleaner plants. Morris, taking his fiduciary responsibility to the utility’s investors seriously, argued these new roles would come at a cost to AEP and were, thus, bad. What he did not question, and correctly so, was whether more investments would indeed create more jobs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gernot Wagner, Bloomberg