BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering 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


    Wisconsin “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

    Be Careful with Continuous Breach and Statute of Limitations

    EEOC Issues Anti-Harassment Guidance To Construction-Industry Employers

    $48 Million Award and Successful Defense of $135 Million Claim

    Beware of Statutory Limits on Change Orders

    For US Cities in Infrastructure Need, Grant Writers Wanted

    White and Williams Recognized by BTI Consulting Group for Client Service

    Revolutionizing Buildings with Hybrid Energy Systems and Demand Response

    Florida’s “Groundbreaking” Property Insurance Reform Law

    Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies

    In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims

    Ohio Condo Owners Sue Builder, Alleging Construction Defects

    Boston Building Boom Seems Sustainable

    US Supreme Court Orders All Mountain Valley Gas Line Work to Proceed

    COVID-19 Response: Environmental Compliance Worries in the Time of Coronavirus

    Full Extent of Damage From Turkey Quakes Takes Shape

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap - The New Science of Jury Trial Advocacy

    Where Do We Go From Here?

    Florida Federal Court to Examine Issues of Alleged Arbitrator Conflicts of Interests in Panama Canal Case

    5 Ways Equipment Financing is Empowering Small Construction Businesses

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

    Supreme Court Set to Alter Law on Key Project, Workforce Issues

    Whose Lease Is It Anyway: Physical Occupancy Not Required in Landlord-Tenant Dispute

    BHA at the 10th Annual Construction Law Institute, Orlando

    National Coalition to Provide Boost for Building Performance Standards

    Suing A Payment Bond Surety in Different Venue Than Set Forth in The Subcontract

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    A Special CDJ Thanksgiving Edition

    South Adams County Water and Sanitation District Takes Proactive Step to Treat PFAS, Safeguard Water Supplies

    Does Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code Impact Your Construction Project?

    False Implied Certifications in Making Payment Requests: What We Can Learn from Lance Armstrong

    White and Williams Earns National "Best Law Firm" Rankings from US News

    Concurrent Causation Doctrine Applies Where Natural and Man-made Perils Combine to Create Loss

    Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case

    Uniform Rules Governing New York’s Supreme and County Courts Get An Overhaul

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    Toll Brothers Climbs After Builder Reports Higher Sales

    Famed NYC Bridge’s Armor Is Focus of Suit Against French Company

    Blurred Lines: New York Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Privileged Documents in Connection with Pre-Denial Communications Prepared by Insurer's Coverage Counsel

    Bill Introduced to give Colorado Shortest Statute of Repose in U.S.

    U.S. State Adoption of the National Electrical Code

    Neighbor Allowed to Remove Tree Roots on Her Property That Supported Adjoining Landowners’ Two Large Trees With Legal Immunity

    San Francisco Law Firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Hired New Partner

    No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claims Against Contractor

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule

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

    Indemnity Provision Provides Relief to Contractor; Additional Insured Provision Does Not

    NTSB Outlines Pittsburgh Bridge Structure Specifics, Finding Collapse Cause Will Take Months

    Multisensory Marvel: Exploring the Innovative MSG Sphere
    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

    Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations

    November 01, 2022 —
    Under the Miller Act, a claim against a Miller Act payment bond must be commenced “no later than one year after the date on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(4). Stated another way, a claimant must file its lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond within one year from its final furnishing on the project. Filing a lawsuit too late, i.e., outside of the one-year statute of limitations, will be fatal to a Miller Act payment bond claim. This was the outcome in Diamond Services Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, 2022 WL 4990416 (5th Cir. 2022) where a claimant filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit four days late. That four days proved to be fatal to its Miller Act payment bond claim and lawsuit. Do not let this happen to you! In Diamond Services Corp., the claimant submitted a claim to the Miller Act payment bond surety. The surety issued a claim form to the claimant that requested additional information. The claimant returned the surety’s claim form. The surety denied the claim a year and a couple of days after the claimant’s final furnishing. The claimant immediately filed its payment bond lawsuit four days after the year expired. The claimant argued that the surety should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in light of the surety’s letter requesting additional information. (The claimant was basically arguing that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.) The trial court dismissed the Miller Act payment bond claim finding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not apply. 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

    Misread of Other Insurance Clause Becomes Costly for Insurer

    February 22, 2018 —

    One insurer's refusal to defend based upon its "other insurance" provision ultimately meant the insurer had to pay all of the insured's defense costs. Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 2018 Wis. App. LEXIS 51 (Wis. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2018).

    Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) was a government agency that provided water reclamation and flood management services to the city. From March 1, 1998 to February 20, 2008, MMSD contracted with United Water Services Milwaukee LLC to operate the sewerage system. From March 1, 2008 on, MMSD contracted with Veolia Water North America-Central, LLC to operate the system.

    Through agreements, both companies were obligated to indemnify MMSD for claims arising out of the operations and maintenance of the system and to obtain insurance to cover their indemnity obligations. Both companies complied.

    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

    Buy Clean California Act Takes Effect on July 1, 2022

    July 25, 2022 —
    The Buy Clean California Act (BCCA) – Public Contract Code section 3500 et seq. – requires state agencies to consider the carbon content of the following products when awarding contracts:
    • Structural steel;
    • Concrete reinforcing steel;
    • Flat glass; and
    • Mineral wool board insulation.
    It is anticipated that additional products may be added through future legislation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    How Long Does a Civil Lawsuit Take?

    August 14, 2018 —
    How long does a civil lawsuit take? One common question among parties to a civil lawsuit, whether a plaintiff or defendant, is how long will it take to reach a resolution? The answer is tricky. The time it takes to resolve a civil lawsuit is highly dependent on various factors including the complexity of the matter and the parties’ willingness to settle. At the outset, parties to a civil case may resolve the matter at any time by mutual agreement (i.e., settlement). In that case, the parties draft a Stipulation and Order outlining the terms of the agreed settlement and submit the document to the judge for approval. Absent of any glaring inequity in the terms of the Stipulation, the judge will typically approve of the parties’ settlement, and the matter will be deemed resolved (either in whole or in part, depending on the case, the terms of the settlement and indemnity agreement). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara

    Private Mediations Do Not Toll The Five-Year Prosecution Statute

    April 28, 2016 —
    If you thought private mediation could toll the five-year period for case prosecution – think again. In a recent decision handed down by the Second District Court of Appeal, the court unequivocally held that voluntary, private mediations do not toll the five-year period before dismissal for failure to bring an action to trial. California Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 sets forth the applicable rule: “[a]n action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant.” Section 1775.7(b) clarifies this rule, stating that the five-year period can be tolled if it is “submitted to mediation” within the final six months of the five-year period. However, the Code is silent with respect to the effect of tolling on public versus private mediations. The Court of Appeal addressed this issue in its recent decision entitled Castillo v. DHL Express (USA) (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 1186. Castillo was an employment class action brought by truck drivers against their employers. Plaintiffs argued that the case was “submitted to mediation” within the meaning of Section 1775.7(b) because the court’s Case Management Order reflected the fact that the parties agreed to pursue mediation. Conversely, defendants argued that the Case Management Statement clearly stated that the parties voluntarily agreed to a private mediation, not a court-ordered mediation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Zachary P. Marks, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger In Focus
    Mr. Marks may be contacted at zmarks@cgdrblaw.com

    Florida District Court Finds That “Unrelated” Design Errors Sufficient to Trigger “Related Claims” Provision in Architects & Engineers Policy

    March 02, 2020 —
    Most professional liability polices include some form of a “related claims” provision that generally provides where two or more claims or wrongful acts are causally or logically related, they will be deemed to constitute a single claim. Importantly, these provisions typically provide that those “claims” are then deemed to have been “first made” at the time the first claim or act was committed for purposes of the policy’s claims-made and reporting requirements. Understandably, these provisions provide insurers and insureds with some clarity over the number and timing of claims that could involve multiple errors or omissions, and potentially aggregate all related claims or acts into a single policy period. While reasonable in principle, application of such provisions, especially involving large scale design and construction projects, is not always so easy. Nova Southeastern University, Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co., 18-cv-61842 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2019), involved such an insurance coverage dispute with a design project gone wrong. DeRose Design Consultants, Inc. (“DeRose”) was hired as a structural engineer to design “ice tanks” to store and chill water for an energy efficient air conditioning facility constructed on the campus of Nova Southeastern University (“NSU”). An early water test on one of the tanks determined the walls of the ice tank deflected, leaked, and cracked when the tank was filled with water. DeRose later discovered that the problems with the ice tank were caused by a structural design error. The first errors were discovered in early 2009, and reported under DeRose’s professional liability policy with Evanston. DeRose then created a remedial design to repair the tanks, which involved strengthening repairs. Additional leaking and an early indication of corrosion involving the Remedial Design arose as early as October 25, 2009. Several field investigation reports were prepared in 2011 and 2012 confirming these issues with the Remedial Design. A third report in February 2012, however, identified a new error involving the concrete slab under the ice tanks also designed by DeRose. The third report concluded that the concreate slab was overstressed and could not handle the loads of the ice tanks. The report also concluded, however, that the design defects in the concrete slab were “unrelated” to the original design defect of the ice tank walls or Remedial Design. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

    Homebuilders Offer Hope for U.K. Economy

    August 20, 2014 —
    The two elements of the U.K. economy that the Bank of England currently finds most worrying are the overheating housing market and the paucity of wage growth. Earnings reports this week from two of the nation's biggest homebuilders make for cheery reading on both counts. Persimmon Plc, the U.K.'s largest homebuilder by market value, said today it completed 6,408 new homes in the first half of the year, a 28 percent increase from the year-earlier period. Bovis Homes Group, which mostly builds what it calls "traditional" family homes in the south of England outside London, said it sold 1,487 new homes in the first six months, a gain of 54 percent. "The government has told us that we need 230,000 new homes per annum, and far be it for us to disagree with that," Bovis Chief Executive Officer David Ritchie said on a conference call. He expects to build about 3,650 homes this year, and reckons that "5,000 to 6,000 homes per annum is a very sensible target for the business." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mark Gilbert, Bloomberg
    Mr. Gilbert may be contacted at magilbert@bloomberg.net

    OSHA Set to Tag More Firms as Severe Violators Under New Criteria

    November 01, 2022 —
    In announcing last month broadened criteria for classifying employers as severe safety violators, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration official Douglas Parker singled out a steel fabricator near El Paso, Texas. The U.S. Labor Dept. assistant secretary for occupational safety and health, he posted a blog stating that OSHA had placed Kyoei Steel Ltd. in its severe violators program, which subjects the firm to numerous re-inspections until it is allowed to exit. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record and Stephanie Loder, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of