BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut building code compliance 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


    Construction Defect Litigation in Nevada Called "Out of Control"

    English v. RKK. . . The Rest of the Story

    Construction Warranties and the Statute of Repose – Southern States Chemical, Inc v. Tampa Tank & Welding Inc.

    How BIM Can Serve Building Owners

    Mixing Concrete, Like Baking a Cake, is Fraught with Problems When the Recipe is Not Followed

    School Board Settles Construction Defect Suit

    Landlords Beware: Subordination Agreements

    Insurance Policy’s “No Voluntary Payment” Clauses Lose Some Bite in Colorado

    No Coverage for Repairs Made Before Suit Filed

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    Lessee Deemed Statutory Employer, Immune from Tort Liability by Pennsylvania Court

    Haight Attorneys Selected to 2018 Southern California Rising Stars List

    2017 California Construction Law Update

    The Private Works: Preliminary Notice | Are You Using the Correct Form?

    NYC Building Explosion Kills Two After Neighbor Reports Gas Leak

    Zinc in London Climbs for Second Day Before U.S. Housing Data

    Workarounds for Workers' Comp Immunity: How to Obtain Additional Insured Coverage when the Named Insured is Immune from Suit

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 6: Ensuring Availability of Insurance and State Regulations

    Personal Guarantor Cannot Escape a Personal Guarantee By…

    A Community Constantly on the Brink of Disaster

    Re-Entering the Workplace: California's Guideline for Employers

    Hawaii Federal District Court Remands Coverage Dispute

    Architect Plans to 3D-Print a Two-Story House

    Construction Delays for China’s Bahamas Resort Project

    DC District Court Follows Ninth Circuit’s Lead Dismissing NABA’s Border Wall Case

    No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Arkansas Law

    CDJ’s #10 Topic of the Year: Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216.

    Insurance for Large Construction Equipment Such as a Crane

    Ohio Condo Owners Sue Builder, Alleging Construction Defects

    Florida Issues Emergency Fraud Prevention Rule to Protect Policyholders in Wake of Catastrophic Storms

    No Occurrence Where Contract Provides for Delays

    The OFCCP’s November 2019 Updated Technical Assistance Guide: What Every Federal Construction Contractor Should Know

    Determination That Title Insurer Did Not Act in Bad Faith Vacated and Remanded

    London Shard Developer Wins Approval for Tower Nearby

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Preserves Possibility of Coverage

    Appraisal Award for Damaged Roof Tiles Challenged

    Drowning of Two Boys Constitutes One Occurrence

    Georgia Update: Automatic Renewals in Consumer Service Contracts

    No Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Under Hawaii Law, but All is not Lost for Insured Contractor

    Staying the Course, Texas Supreme Court Rejects Insurer’s Argument for Exception to Eight-Corners Rule in Determining Duty to Defend

    Broker's Motion for Summary Judgment on Negligence Claim Denied

    Congratulations to Las Vegas Team on Their Successful Motion for Summary Judgment!

    San Francisco Law Firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Hired New Partner

    Fed Inflation Goal Is Elusive as U.S. Rents Stabilize: Economy

    The Construction Project is Late—Allocation of Delay

    Economic Damages Cannot be Based On Speculation

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Eliminates Loss from Hurricane

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at Slower Pace in May

    Unjust Enrichment and Express Contract Don’t Mix

    Understanding the Miller Act
    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

    Arizona Is the No. 1 Merit Shop Construction State, According to ABC’s 2020 Scorecard

    February 15, 2021 —
    Associated Builders and Contractors released its 2020 Merit Shop Scorecard, an annual ranking based on state policies and programs that encourage workforce development, strengthen career and technical education, grow careers in construction, and promote fair and open competition for taxpayer-funded construction projects. Arizona topped the rankings for the first time this year based on the state’s promotion of free enterprise and investment in tomorrow’s construction workforce, a top priority for ABC. Georgia followed Arizona in second place this year, up from fifth in 2019. Florida, a year-to-year high performer, remained in the top five after two years in the top rank in 2018 and 2019. “A foundational pillar of ABC is building the next generation of craft professionals, and the top states in this year’s rankings lead the country in workforce development policies,” said Ben Brubeck, ABC’s vice president of regulatory, labor and state affairs. “The merit shop contractor can flourish in free enterprise environments created in states like Arizona and Florida, which has positive ripple effects on a state’s overall economic growth.” Reprinted courtesy of ABC, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    It’s Not What You Were Thinking!

    December 10, 2024 —
    At least it is not what the lower court was thinking… but the same result for a general contractor seeking to have its comprehensive general liability insurer pay the GC’s defense related to claims for physical damage on a construction project. In reviewing the Massachusetts federal district court’s ruling in favor of the insurer, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals posited: “The principal question is whether a general contractor’s CGL insurance policy covers damage to a non-defective part of the contractor’s project resulting from a subcontractor’s defective work on a different part of that project.” The district court had held under Massachusetts law that the insurer had no duty to defend because the lawsuit “did not allege ‘property damage’ caused by an ‘ occurrence,’ as required for coverage” under the policy (a defense that was urged by the insurer). The Court of Appeals affirmed, “albeit for different reasons.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Navigating Construction Contracts in the Energy Sector – Insights from Sheppard Mullin’s Webinar Series

    October 01, 2024 —
    Construction contracts in the energy sector involve unique challenges and risks, particularly with respect to bonds and mechanic’s liens. Understanding how to navigate these challenges is key to protecting your projects from disputes with general contractors, subcontractors and suppliers. In our recent webinar, “Construction Contracts: Bond and Mechanic’s Lien Primer for Energy Projects,” I was joined by my Sheppard Mullin colleagues Chris Kolosov and Emily Anderson to discuss navigating common contract pitfalls and negotiation strategies to protect your interests. Here are our key takeaways.
    1. Know Local Mechanic’s Lien Laws: Mechanic’s liens are statutory and vary significantly from state to state. It is critical to understand the local laws and regulations at play in your project’s jurisdiction.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Cesar Pereira, Sheppard Mullin
    Mr. Pereira may be contacted at cpereira@sheppardmullin.com

    Traub Lieberman Senior Trial Counsel Timothy McNamara Wins Affirmation of Summary Judgment Denial

    August 28, 2023 —
    In this appeal brought before the State of New York Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, the court ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s client, a housing complex owner, affirming the denial of co-defendant landscaping company’s summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of the cross-claims asserted by the complex owner against the co-defendant. In the underlying case, the plaintiff was allegedly injured when she slipped and fell on ice on the exterior stairs of the housing complex where she lived. The complex owner had contracted with the co-defendant to provide snow removal services for the complex. The plaintiff commenced action against both the complex owner and the landscaping company to recover damages for personal injuries. The complex owner asserted cross-claims against the landscaping company for contribution, common-law indemnification, and contractual indemnification. The landscaping company sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it, but the branch of the motion seeking dismissal of the cross-claims was denied. In the appeal brought before the Appellate Division, the court ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s client, the complex owner, affirming the denial of summary judgment for the cross-claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Timothy G. McNamara, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. McNamara may be contacted at tmcnamara@tlsslaw.com

    PAGA Right of Action Not Applicable to Construction Workers Under Collective Bargaining Agreement

    December 26, 2022 —
    California is one of the most employee-friendly states in the country. From strict hiring laws (don’t think about asking about an applicant’s criminal, credit or even salary history), to generous benefits (minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest breaks, family medical leave, etc.) and strict anti-harassment laws (if you have to think about it, even for a second, don’t do it), to protections for terminated workers (whistle blower protections, WARN notices, non-compete restrictions), California workers enjoy protections that many others do not. This includes PAGA, or the Private Attorneys General Act, which authorizes aggrieved employees to file lawsuits against their employers to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State of California for Labor Code violations. In general, the right of an employee to file a PAGA action cannot be waived by contract. However, Labor Code section 2699.6 which was enacted in 2018 provides an exception for construction workers who perform work under certain collective bargaining agreements. In the next case, Oswald v. Murray Plumbing and heating Corporation, 82 Cal.App.5th 938 (2022), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether collective bargaining agreement with a retroactive date, signed after an employee was terminated, precluded an employee from bringing a PAGA action. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter

    October 10, 2013 —
    The Ninth Circuit held there is a duty to defend not only a PRP letter issued by the EPA, but also a section 104 (e) letter. Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18156 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2013). The insured received two letters from the EPA notifying it of potential liability under CERCLA for environmental contamination of the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. The first letter was received in January 2008, and stated that the EPA sought the insured's cooperation in its investigation of the release of hazardous substances at the site. The letter enclosed an extensive, 82-question "Information Request" seeking information about the insured's current and former activities at the site. The letter informed the insured that its voluntary cooperation was sought, but compliance with the Information Request was required by law and failure to respond could result in an enforcement action and civil penalties of $32,500 per day. The insured tendered the 104 (e) letter to St. Paul and requested a defense and indemnity pursuant to the CGL policy. St. Paul declined to provide a defense because the letter did not constitute a "suit," which was required by the policy to trigger the duty to defend. The second letter from the EPA, received in November 2009, was entitled "General Notice Letter for the Portland Superfund Site" and notified the insured that it was a "potentially responsible party ("PRP"). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    November 12, 2019 —
    In a written decision dated August 12, 2019, authored by Chief Judge Diane P. Wood, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s insurer client, affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in the insurer’s favor. Partners, Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe, represented the insurer client in the District Court and before the Seventh Circuit. Macklin argued the case before the Seventh Circuit on behalf of the insurer on May 28, 2019. The insurer client issued an excess liability policy to Deerfield Construction, a telecommunications construction company, which incorporated the notice requirements of the primary liability insurance policy issued by American States Insurance Company. The insured’s employee was involved in an automobile accident in 2008, during the effective dates of the excess liability policy. A lawsuit arising from the accident was filed and served in 2009. While Deerfield Construction, through its retained insurance intermediary, provided immediate notice of the accident and lawsuit to the primary liability insurer, the insurer client did not receive notice of either the accident or the lawsuit from any source until December 2014, approximately six weeks before trial. Following a $2.3 million judgment, the insurer client filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a finding that Deerfield Construction materially breached the excess liability policy by not providing reasonable notice of the accident or the lawsuit, as required by the policy. The District Court found that the notice given to the insurer client was unreasonable as a matter of law. The District Court rejected Deerfield Construction’s argument that an insurance broker involved in the purchase of the excess liability policy, Arthur J. Gallagher, was the insurer client’s apparent agent for purposes of accepting notice. The District Court also rejected Deerfield Construction’s argument that the insurer client’s acts of requesting discovery, reviewing trial reports, and participating in settlement discussions raised equitable estoppel concerns. Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman and Mark F. Wolfe, Traub Lieberman Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com Mr. Wolfe may be contacted at mwolfe@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Updated 3/13/20: Coronavirus is Here: What Does That Mean for Your Project and Your Business?

    March 16, 2020 —
    The outbreak of COVID-19 (“coronavirus”) has wreaked a considerable human toll of death, physical suffering, fear, and anxiety internationally. Much of the fear and anxiety results from a lack of information or a full understanding about the spread of the disease, protection against infection, and treatment. At Smith, Currie & Hancock, we urge our clients, friends, and colleagues to take seriously, but calmly and prudently, the threat of this disease to protect yourselves, your loved ones, and your businesses. The first step in that process is to inform yourselves with reliable information. Toward that end, we direct your attention to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Coronavirus Disease 2019 website: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html In addition to the human toll, coronavirus has caused substantial disruptions to economies worldwide. In that regard, the adage “a picture is worth a thousand words,” is particularly foreboding. Satellite images taken by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) of China at the outset of the coronavirus outbreak and approximately a month later show a dramatic decline in air pollution, signifying and illustrating a sharp decline in industrial activity and transportation caused by the disease. Reprinted courtesy of Smith Currie attorneys Alexander Gorelik, Joshua E. Holt, Brian N. Krulick, Shoshana E. Rothman, A. Michelle West, and Brian S. Wood Mr. Gorelik may be contacted at agorelik@smithcurrie.com Mr. Holt may be contacted at jeholt@smithcurrie.com Mr. Brian may be contacted at bnkrulick@smithcurrie.com Ms. Shoshana may be contacted at serothman@smithcurrie.com Ms. West may be contacted at amwest@smithcurrie.com Mr. Wood may be contacted at bswood@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of