BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture 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


    Contractor’s Assignment of Construction Contract to Newly Formed Company Before Company Was Licensed, Not Subject to B&P 7031

    Nine Gibbs Giden Partners Listed in Southern California Super Lawyers 2022

    Certificates of Merit: Is Your Texas Certificate Sufficient?

    Civil Engineers: Montana's Infrastructure Grade Declines to a 'C-'

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Best Lawyers®

    New ANSI Requirements for Fireplace Screens

    Partner Vik Nagpal is Recognized as a Top Lawyer of 2020

    Happenings in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar

    President Trump Repeals Contractor “Blacklisting” Rule

    Melissa Dewey Brumback Invited Into Claims & Litigation Management Alliance Membership

    Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York

    Kaboom! Illinois Applies the Anti-Subrogation Rule to Require a Landlord’s Subrogating Property Insurer to Defend a Third-Party Complaint Against Tenants

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit with Additional Million

    Jason Feld Awarded Volunteer of the Year by Claims & Litigation Management Alliance

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Indemnity Coverage For Damage Caused by Named Insured

    Haight’s Stevie Baris Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Northern California Rising Stars

    Administration Launches 'Buy Clean' Construction Materials Push

    Angela Cooner Appointed Vice-Chair of Arizona’s Inaugural Board of Legal Specialization Construction Defect Law Advisory Commission

    BHA Has a Nice Swing

    Updated Covid-19 Standards In The Workplace

    How the Science of Infection Can Make Cities Stronger

    There's No Place Like Home

    California’s Right to Repair Act not an Exclusive Remedy

    Federal Court Holds That Other Insurance Analysis Is Unnecessary If Policies Cover Different Risks

    NYC Design Firm Executives Plead Guilty in Pay-to-Play Scheme

    Third Circuit Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Despite Insured’s Expectations

    How to Cool Down Parks in Hot Cities

    The Final Frontier Opens Up New Business Opportunities for Private Contractors

    Construction Contract Clauses Only a Grinch Would Love – Part 4

    Claims for Negligence? Duty to Defend Triggered

    Building the Secondary Market for Reclaimed Building Materials

    Sinking S.F. Tower Prompts More Lawsuits

    The Difference Between Routine Document Destruction and Spoliation

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2022 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

    An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

    “But I didn’t know what I was signing….”

    MTA Implements Revised Contractors Debarment Regulations

    Pennsylvania Reconstruction Project Beset by Problems

    No Conflict in Successive Representation of a Closely-Held Company and Its Insiders Where Insiders Already Possess Company’s Confidential Information

    How Many New Home Starts are from Teardowns?

    You Don’t Have To Be a Consumer to Assert a FDUTPA Claim

    Workers on Big California Bridge Tackle Oil Wells, Seismic Issues

    Insurer Not Bound by Decision in Underlying Case Where No Collateral Estoppel

    New York Converting Unlikely Buildings into Condominiums

    Contractor May Be Barred Until Construction Lawsuit Settled

    Assignment of Construction Defect Claims Not Covered

    Do We Really Want Courts Deciding if Our Construction Contracts are Fair?

    Congratulations to Jonathan Kaplan on his Promotion to Partner!

    2019 California Construction Law Update

    An Occurrence Under Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy Is Based on the Language in the Policy
    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

    Insurer's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Construction Defect Claim Rejected

    January 22, 2024 —
    The magistrate judge recommended that the insurer's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied in a case involving coverage for the insured subcontractor's alleged faulty workmanship. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Sonny Glasbrenner, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190019 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2023). Cone & Graham (C&G), the general contractor, subcontracted with Sonny Glasbrenner, Inc. (SGI) to work on the project. The project involved the rehabilitation of a bridge due to deterioration of the existing concrete bridge deck by adding additional cross bracing to further stiffen the steel girders and using special lightweight concrete. C&G contracted SGH to demolish the existing concrete bridge deck. SGI completed the work. Thereafter, C&G made a demand to SGI for alleged damaged caused by SGI's work. C&G alleged that SGI was negligent in performing the demolition work, causing substantial damage to the existing bridge girders. C&G sued SGI. 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

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 37 White And Williams Lawyers

    September 26, 2022 —
    Thirty-two White and Williams lawyers were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2023. Inclusion in Best Lawyers® is based entirely on peer-review. The methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Best Lawyers® employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of quality legal services. In addition, eight lawyers were recognized as "Ones to Watch” by Best Lawyers®. This recognition is given to attorneys who are earlier in their careers for outstanding professional excellence in private practice in the United States. The firm is also pleased to announce Best Lawyers® has recognized four White and Williams lawyers as "Lawyer of the Year." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Water Backup Payment Satisfies Insurer's Obligation to Cover for Rain Damage

    February 16, 2017 —
    The insured's attempt to secure additional coverage beyond a $10,000 payment for water damage after a rain storm damaged the interior of its building failed. Bible World Christian Ctr. v. Colony Insurance Co, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175766 (M.D La. Dec. 20, 2016). The interior of Bible World's building was damaged by water that leaked in from the roof after a heavy rain storm. Bible World's officials met with Robert Chandler, an employee of Omni Insurance Group, the day after the rain event. Chandler had assisted Bible World in procuring its commercial property policy with Colony Insurance Company. Chandler told Bible World to fix the property and that its costs would be covered under the policy. Bible World spent $79,876.81 in repairs. 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

    Choice of Laws Test Mandates Application of California’s Continuous and Progressive Trigger of Coverage to Asbestos Claims

    June 01, 2020 —
    In Textron v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. (No. B262933, filed 2/25/20), a California appeals court held that the Restatement’s choice of laws factors mandated application of California’s continuous and progressive trigger of coverage to asbestos claims, overcoming an argument that a manifestation trigger should apply under Rhode Island law. Travelers insured Textron from 1966 to 1987. In 2011, Textron was sued by a California resident, Esters, for damages caused by mesothelioma resulting from asbestos exposure in California. The action was defended and settled by Travelers and other insurers under reservations of rights. Textron sued Travelers in California for a declaration that Travelers owed duties to defend and indemnify the Esters action. Travelers cross-complained, seeking reimbursement. The case turned on choice of law for trigger of coverage as between California and Rhode Island. Citing Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 645 and Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1, the Textron court noted that California applies a continuous trigger to continuous or progressively deteriorating injury. By contrast, in Rhode Island a covered occurrence exists “when the damage … manifests itself, … is discovered or, … in the exercise of reasonable diligence is discoverable.” (Citing Textron, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. (R.I. 2002) 754 A.2d 742.) According to Travelers, the Esters action was not covered under Rhode Island law because the plaintiff’s mesothelioma was not diagnosed until 2010, after Travelers was off the risk. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Defense Owed for Product Liability Claims That Do Not Amount to Faulty Workmanship

    December 30, 2013 —
    The trial court's holding that there was no occurrence based on claims from faulty workmanship was reversed by the appellate division of the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The underlying claims were based on product liability tort claims, not faulty workmanship. Indalex Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA., 2013 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3186 (Pa. Superior Court Dec. 3, 2013). The underlying lawsuits claimed that the insureds' windows and doors were defectively designed or manufactured, which resulted in water leakage causing physical damage, such as mold and cracked walls. There were also personal injury claims. The insureds had a primary policy with OneBeacon Insurance Group, but the policy limits were exhausted. The insureds turned to their commercial umbrella policy issued by National Union. The policy defined occurrence as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in Bodily Injury or Property Damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the Insured." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Consider the Risks Associated with an Exculpatory Clause

    November 24, 2019 —
    An exculpatory clause in a contract is a clause aimed at relieving another party from certain liability. A disclaimer and insulation from liability. Obviously, if you are the party relieving the other party from liability, you want to consider this risk including the potential enforceability of this risk if something goes wrong. If you are the party asking for the insulation from liability, you do not want to create an exculpatory provision that disclaims and insulates you of all liability arising from the contract as it may create an illusory effect – that the agreement is nothing but a naked promise on your end because your promise is fully disclaimed and you are insulated from liability if you break your promise. This could result in an unenforceable contract. The validity of such an exculpatory clause was at-issue in Pier 1 Cruise Experts v. Revelex Corp., 2019 WL 3024618 (11thCir. 2019). Although not a construction dispute, the exculpatory clause in this case was with two fairly sophisticated parties and expressly insulated one of the contracting parties from “any…damages regardless of kind or type…whether in contract, tort (including negligence), or otherwise.” Pier 1 Cruise Experts, 2019 WL at *7. This is a powerful exculpatory clause because it could be broadly construed to insulate that party from its own breaches of the contract. In Florida:
    [A]n exculpatory clause is enforceable so long as (1) the contracting parties have equal bargaining power and (2) the clause’s provisions are clear and unambiguous. With respect to the latter requirement, ‘the intention to be relieved from liability [must be] made clear and unequivocal and the wording must be so clear and understandable that an ordinary and knowledgeable person will know what he is contracting away.” In the same vein, exculpatory clauses are ‘strictly construed against the party seeking to be relieved of liability.’ Pier 1 Cruise Experts, 2019 WL at *7 (internal citations omitted).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Contract Void Ab Initio: Key Insights into the KBR vs. Corps of Engineers Affirmative Defense

    February 12, 2024 —
    In a recent Board decision dated December 13, 2023, the United States Army Corps of Engineers sought to amend its answer in the case of APPEALS OF – KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC., under Contract No. W912GB-13-C-0011. The proposed amendment introduces an affirmative defense, contending that Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (KBR) made material misrepresentations in its proposal, rendering the fully-performed contract void ab initio. Background: The contract in question, executed on July 9, 2013, was for the construction of an Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System site in Deveselu, Romania, with a firm, fixed-price amount of $134,211,592. The Corps moved to amend its answer to allege that KBR’s material misrepresentations induced the Corps to enter the contract, justifying the voiding of the contract. The alleged misrepresentations include issues related to subcontractor quotes, firm fixed prices, subcontracting plans, and more. Motion to Amend and Legal Defense: The Corps, despite delays in formally amending its answer, argued that KBR was aware of the potential affirmative defense before the conclusion of fact discovery. The proposed affirmative defense asserts that KBR made eight material misrepresentations in its proposal, upon which the Corps relied in awarding the contract and defending against a GAO protest. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Matthew DeVries, Burr & Forman LLP
    Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@burr.com

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim

    January 12, 2015 —
    A new year brings with it promise and challenges. The promise is a relatively clean slate and the thought that 2015 will be a great year for construction professionals and those that assist them. The challenges come from the almost inevitable issues that can arise on a construction site with its many moving parts and enough potential pitfalls to make even the most optimistic construction attorney, contractor, subcontractor or supplier think that Murphy was an optimist. In order to assist with the potential challenges, this post will be the first in a series of “musings” on the best way to handle a payment dispute arising from a construction contract. This week’s post will discuss what the first steps should be once a payment dispute or claim arises. We’ll assume that you, as a construction contractor, have taken early advantage of the services of a construction lawyer and have carefully reviewed your contract for issues before signing that contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com