BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating 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


    Was Jury Right in Negligent Construction Case?

    Massachusetts High Court to Decide if Insurers Can Recoup Defense Costs

    Rachel Reynolds Selected as Prime Member of ADTA

    Texas School District Accepts Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    An Overview of the New EPA HVAC Refrigerant Regulations and Its Implications for the Construction Industry

    Your “Independent Contractor” Clause Just Got a Little Less Relevant

    Brief Discussion of Enforceability of Anti-Indemnity Statutes in California

    Warranty Reform Legislation for Condominiums – Unfair Practices used by Developers and Builders to avoid Warranty Responsibility for Construction Defects in Newly Constructed Condominiums

    Demand for New Homes Good News for Home Builders

    Despite Construction Gains, Cement Maker Sees Loss

    The A, B and C’s of Contracting and Self-Performing Work Under California’s Contractor’s License Law

    The Power of Planning: Four Key Themes for Mitigating Risk in Construction

    United States Supreme Court Limits Class Arbitration

    WA Supreme Court Allows Property Owner to Sue Engineering Firm for Lost Profits

    Endorsement Excludes Replacement of Undamaged Property with Matching Materials

    Following Mishaps, D.C. Metro Presses on With Repairs

    California Makes Big Changes to the Discovery Act

    Construction of New U.S. Homes Declines on Plunge in South

    Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    Consultant’s Corner: Why Should Construction Business Owners Care about Cyber Liability Insurance?

    Federal Court Requires Auto Liability Carrier to Cover Suit Involving Independent Contractor Despite “Employee Exclusion”

    Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects

    Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts

    California to Require Disclosure of Construction Defect Claims

    Condo Board Goes after Insurer for Construction Defect Settlement

    Competition to Design Washington D.C.’s 11th Street Bridge Park

    New Jersey Firm’s Fee Action Tossed for not Filing Substitution of Counsel

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

    Co-Housing Startups Fly in the Face of Old-School NYC Housing Law

    White and Williams Elects Four Lawyers to Partnership, Promotes Six Associates to Counsel

    A Relatively Small Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

    Florida Passes Tort Reform Bill

    Equal Access to Justice Act Fee Request Rejected in Flood Case

    Show Me the Money: The Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Penalties

    The Independent Tort Doctrine (And Its Importance)

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

    Locals Concerns over Taylor Swift’s Seawall Misdirected

    Privette: The “Affirmative Contribution” Exception, How Far Does It Go?

    In Appellate Division First, New York Appellate Team Successfully Invokes “Party Finality” Doctrine to Obtain Dismissal of Appeal for Commercial Guarantors

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

    Which Cities have the Most Affordable Homes?

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (11/16/22) – Backlog Shifts, Green Battery Storage, and Russia-Ukraine Updates

    Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud

    New York Court Discusses Evidentiary Standards for Policy Rescission Based on Material Misrepresentation

    Lien Claimant’s Right to Execute against Bond Upheld in Court of Appeals

    2019 California Construction Law Update

    DE Confirms Robust D&O Protection Despite Company Demise

    The Almost-Collapse of a Sarasota, Florida Condo Building

    Governor Signs Permit Extension Bill Extending Permit Deadlines to One Year

    Navigating the Hurdles of Florida Construction Defect Lawsuits
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Become Familiar With Your CGL Policy Exclusions to Ensure You Are Covered: Wardcraft v. EMC.

    December 31, 2014 —
    In a recent case arising out of a denial of coverage for alleged construction defect claims concerning a pre-fabricated home, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado applied the 10th Circuit’s determination of what can constitute an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy. See Wardcraft Homes, Inc. v. Employers Mutual Cas. Co., 2014 WL 4852117 (D. Colo. September 29, 2014). William and Grace Stuhr sued Wardcraft, which manufactured pre-fabricated homes at a facility in Fort Morgan, Colorado, because their home was not completed as scheduled and contained various defects. The Stuhrs filed suit against Wardcraft alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. Wardcraft tendered the Stuhrs’ complaint to Employers Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”), which denied coverage under its policy and denied any duty to defend. According to EMC, the Stuhrs’ alleged construction defects were not property damages and there was no occurrence in connection with faulty workmanship. Approximately two and a half years after they filed their initial complaint, the Stuhrs filed an amended complaint. Wardcraft did not tender this amended complaint to EMC, and first informed EMC about the amended complaint about a year after it was filed. A month prior, Wardcraft settled with the Stuhrs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Heather M. Anderson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Ms. Anderson may be contacted at Anderson@hhmrlaw.com

    Poor Record Keeping = Going to the Poor House (or, why project documentation matters)

    June 11, 2014 —
    You are an engineer or architect. You understand the importance of thorough designs. What about thorough documentation of the daily happenings on the construction project? That is equally important. As regular readers of this blog know, I have often spoken of the importance of proper record keeping on construction projects. In fact, lack of good project records is one of the 7 mistakes in my white paper 7 Critical Mistakes that Engineers & Architects make During Project Negotiation and Execution that Sabotage their Projects & Invite Litigation. Now, a construction management expert, who, like me, sees the ugly when construction projects turn bad, has weighed in with perhaps the authoritative reasoning and rationale (pdf) for good project records. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    Burden to Prove Exception to Exclusion Falls on Insured

    April 19, 2022 —
    In a dispute between two insurers, the Ninth Circuit relied upon Nevada law in finding that the burden of proving that an exception to the exclusion applies was on the insured. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 1626 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2022). Ironshore insured seven subcontractors. The policy included an exclusion providing there was no coverage for any property damage for the subcontractors' for "work performed prior to the policy inception." An exception to the exclusion provided that the exclusion did not apply to property damage that was "sudden and accidental and takes place within the policy period." The seven subcontractors were sued for work they had performed. Zurich defended and indemnified the subcontractors. Zurich then sued Ironshore seeking contribution and indemnification for defense and settlement costs. The parties stipulated that all construction work at issue had been completed before the inception of Ironshore's policy and that none of the complaints against the subcontractors alleged that sudden and accidental damage had occurred after the inception of Ironshore's policy. 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

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/10/23) – Wobbling Real Estate, Booming (and Busting) Construction, and Eye-Watering Insurance Premiums

    May 22, 2023 —
    In our latest roundup, the commercial real estate sector continues to wobble, construction booms and busts, flood insurance premiums reach eye-watering levels, and more.
    • In its latest Financial Stability report, the Federal Reserve acknowledges that the shaky commercial real estate sector could potentially harm the U.S. financial system. (Courtenay Brown, Axios)
    • New data from the California Department of Finance shows that even though the state’s population significantly decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic, home building soared, reaching levels not seen since 2008. (Terry Castleman, Los Angeles Times)
    • Already weakened by rising interest rates, inflation and debt, Sweden’s real estate sector took another hit as SBB’s shares continued to slump. (Reuters)
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Court Bars Licensed Contractor From Seeking Compensation for Work Performed by Unlicensed Sub

    June 06, 2022 —
    It all started with a tree. A eucalyptus tree to be exact. What followed is one of the more important cases to be decided under Business and Professions Code section 7031 in recent years. Yes, that Section 7031. The statute variously described by the state’s courts as “harsh[ ],” draconian” and “unjust,” but, importantly, nevertheless valid. Under Section 7031, an unlicensed contractor is barred from seeking compensation for work requiring a contractor’s license. This has been called the “shield.” However, in addition to the “shield,” project owners can also employ Section 7031’s “sword,” and seek disgorgement of all monies paid to an unlicensed contractor. Section 7031’s “shield” and “sword” applies even if the project owner knew that the contractor was unlicensed. They also apply even if the unlicensed contractor’s work was flawless. And they also apply even if a contractor was unlicensed during a portion of its work. This is because, as courts have stated, Section 7031 is a consumer protection statute intended to protect the public from unlicensed contractors and applies irrespective of the equities. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Federal District Court Dismisses Property Claim After Insured Allows Loss Location to Be Destroyed Prior to Inspection

    September 29, 2021 —
    In BMJ Partners LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co., No. 20-CV-03870, 2021 WL 3709182 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2021), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed, with prejudice, a coverage action filed by an insured based on a failure to comply with a request to inspect the involved property under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The loss at issue involved a hail-damaged building in Carpentersville, Illinois. During the discovery phase of the litigation, the property insurer served a request to inspect the subject property under FRCP Rule 34. After ignoring numerous requests to schedule the inspection, the insurer filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute or, alternatively, to compel an inspection. After the motion was filed, a status hearing was conducted where the insured’s counsel advised the Court of his intention to file a motion to withdraw from representation of the insured. After the date set to file the motion to withdraw passed without anything being filed, the Court entered an order directing the insured to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. In response to the order to show cause, the insured advised the Court that instead of responding to the property insurer’s discovery requests, the insured sold the property to a buyer who subsequently tore down the building. In light of what the Court described as the insured’s “flabbergasting admission”, the Court was compelled to grant the motion to dismiss and do so with prejudice. In support of the “extreme sanction” of dismissing the matter with prejudice, the Court first noted that the insured had not come close to justifying a discharge of the pending show-cause order. Rather, the insured’s responsive filing refers to the Court's show cause order only indirectly and does not deny, or offer any justification for, disregarding case-related communications for several months. Even if that were not enough, the Court further held that the insured’s spoliation of evidence likewise provides sufficient basis for dismissal given that Courts have inherent authority to sanction parties for failure to preserve potential evidence. According to the Court, dismissal with prejudice was the only appropriate sanction in light of the insured’s violation of the obligation to preserve the property. Not only did the insured ignore multiple requests from the insurer to inspect, but during the same time frame the insured found time to allow inspections of the building as part of the sale by both the Village of Carpentersville and the property's buyer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

    Five Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Named “Top Rank Attorneys” by Nevada Business Magazine

    June 26, 2023 —
    Reno, Nev. (June 19, 2023) – Reno Partners John Boyden, Brandon Wright, and Sarah Molleck, Las Vegas Partner Joel Schwarz, and Las Vegas Associate Tamara M. Cannella were recently named to Nevada Business Magazine's 2023 list of "Top Rank Attorneys." Formerly known as "Legal Elite," this annual list represents the top talent in the legal industry across the State of Nevada. According to Nevada Business Magazine, thousands of attorneys are nominated for the list and then scored based on the number and type of votes they receive, with votes from outside an attorney's firm receiving more weight. Finally, before being added to the list, the attorneys, and the votes they receive, go through several levels of verification and scrutiny, with each ballot individually reviewed for eligibility and every voting attorney verified with the State Bar of Nevada. The magazine has published this list for the past 16 years. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Berkeley Researchers Look to Ancient Rome for Greener Concrete

    June 28, 2013 —
    While modern concrete often crumbles after fifty years, some concrete laid down during the Roman Empire is still strong, even after 2,000 years. Researchers at UC Berkeley have been puzzling over the secrets of Roman concrete, using samples from a breakwater near Naples. The breakwater was built about 37 BC, and the concrete is still strong. Unlike modern concrete, the Romans made theirs with a mixture of lime and volcanic ash. Paulo Monteiro, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, noted that one of the drawbacks of Roman cement was that it hardens more slowly than modern concrete. An advantage is that it is more environmentally friendly, and the researchers are trying to determine if volcanic ash cement would be a good substitute. Professor Montiero hopes that fly ash and volcanic ash cements “could replace 40 percent of the world’s demand for Portland cement.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of