BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete 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


    Bill to Include Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Introduced in New Jersey

    XL Group Pairs with America Contractor’s Insurance Group to Improve Quality of Construction

    Subcontractor Strength Will Drive Industry’s Ability to Meet Demand, Overcome Challenges

    No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations

    White House Seeks $310M To Fix Critical San Diego Wastewater Plant

    The Godfather of Solar Predicts Its Future

    Incorporation, Indemnity and Statutes of Limitations, Oh My!

    Five Facts About Housing That Will Make People In New York City and San Francisco Depressed

    Improper Means Exception and Tortious Interference Claims

    Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Negligence Claim Against Flood Insurer

    Despite Feds' Raised Bar, 2.8B Massachusetts Offshore Wind Project Presses On

    National Coalition to Provide Boost for Building Performance Standards

    Faulty Workmanship may be an Occurrence in Indiana CGL Policies

    Contract Should Have Clear and Definite Terms to Avoid a Patent Ambiguity

    Time is of the Essence, Even When the Contract Doesn’t Say So

    KONE is Shaking Up the Industry with BIM

    While Construction Permits Slowly Rise, Construction Starts and Completions in California Are Stagnant

    Louisiana Couple Sues over Defects in Foreclosed Home

    Expired Contract Not Revived Due to Sovereign Immunity and the Ex Contractu Clause

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Confident about Construction Defect Bill

    The Miller Act Explained

    California Ranks As Leading State for Green Building in 2022

    U.S. Steel Invoking Carnegie’s Legacy in Revival Strategy

    Best Lawyers Honors 43 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Recognizes Three Partners as 'Lawyers of The Year'

    A Year After Fatal Genoa Viaduct Collapse, Replacement Takes Shape

    Carin Ramirez and David McLain recognized among the Best Lawyers in America© for 2021

    The Connecticut Appellate Court Decides That Construction Contractor Was Not Obligated To Continue Accelerated Schedule to Mitigate Its Damages Following Late Delivery of Materials by Supplier

    SunTrust Will Pay $968 Million to Resolve Mortgage Probes

    Condominium Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect

    ACEC Research Institute Releases New Engineering Industry Forecast

    Evaluating Construction Trends From 2023 and Forecasting For 2024

    To Sea or Not to Sea: Fifth Circuit Applies Maritime Law to Offshore Service Contract, Spares Indemnity Provision from Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act

    CGL Coverage for Liquidated Damages and the Contractual Liability Exclusion

    The Hazards of Carrier-Specific Manuscript Language: Ohio Casualty's Off-Premises Property Damage and Contractors' E&O Endorsements

    Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc.

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

    Alabama Federal Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Construction Defect Declaratory Judgment Action Due to Expanded Duty to Defend Standard

    Toll Brothers Named #1 Home Builder on Fortune Magazine's 2023 World's Most Admired Companies® List

    Look Out! Texas Building Shedding Marble Panels

    The Top 3 Trends That Will Impact the Construction Industry in 2024

    Senior Living Facility Makes Construction Defect Claims

    Expert Medical Science Causation Testimony Improperly Excluded under Daubert; ID of Sole Cause of Medical Condition Not Required

    A Top U.S. Seller of Carbon Offsets Starts Investigating Its Own Projects

    Retrofitting Buildings Is the Unsexy Climate Fix the World Needs

    Las Vegas Sphere Lawsuits Roll On in Nevada Courtrooms

    You Cannot Arbitrate Claims Not Covered By The Arbitration Agreement

    Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    Surviving a Tornado – How to Navigate Insurance Claims in the Wake of the Recent Connecticut Storm

    Department Of Labor Recovers $724K In Back Wages, Damages For 255 Workers After Phoenix Contractor Denied Overtime Pay, Falsified Records

    How Construction Contracts are Made. Hint: It’s a Bit Like Making Sausage
    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

    Best Practices in Construction– What are Yours?

    November 26, 2014 —
    The latest Engineering News Record had an interesting article on Best Practices in Construction written by Deron Cowan of Zurich Services Corporation. In the articles, Mr. Cowan emphasizes the importance of best practices and the methodology to develop them. As Mr. Cowan notes, best practices are intended to eliminate, reduce and manage risks and all construction companies should be fully engaged in correctly executing and accomplishing risk analysis to meet the demands of their practices. 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

    San Francisco Half-Built Apartment Complex Destroyed by Fire

    March 12, 2014 —
    According to San Jose Mercury News, a 250 million dollar apartment complex being built in San Francisco, California received “catastrophic damage” from a fire on March 11th. The complex was being developed by BRE Properties, Inc., and “was slated to open sometime later this year.” Initial reports blamed high winds for the start of the blaze, however, San Jose Mercury news reported that “downtown San Francisco experienced wind speeds of no more than 10 mph Tuesday, and that heavy winds were not expected Tuesday night” according to the National Weather Service. “Representatives for [BRE Properties, Inc.] were not available for comment,” as reported by San Jose Mercury News. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2021 New York – Metro Super Lawyers®

    October 18, 2021 —
    Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that six Partners from the Hawthorne, NY Office have been selected to the 2021 New York - Metro Super Lawyers list. 2021 New York – Metro Super Lawyers Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

    Motion for Reconsideration Challenging Appraisal Determining Cause of Loss Denied

    November 16, 2023 —
    The court rejected the insurer's motion for reconsideration attempting to set aside the appraisal award that determined the cause of loss. Mesco Mfg., LLC v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 2023 WL 5334659 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 18, 2023). Mesco suffered a loss to the roofs of its facilities due to hail damage. Mesco sued Motorists alleging it breached the policy by failing to pay the full amount of the claim. The claim went to appraisal. The policy's appraisal provision reserved Motorists' right to deny the claim despite an appraisal going forward. The appraisal award noted that the loss was caused by hail. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. The court found that Motorists had breached the policy by failing to pay the arbitration award and granted summary judgment to the insured. The "right to deny" clause did not give Motorists the unfetterd right to disregard the umpire's award if it disgreed about the amount of loss caused by hail. The only dispute was whether the damage was caused by hail, and the umpire found that it was. 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

    New York Appellate Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

    November 30, 2020 —
    On October 9, 2020, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, decided an appeal from a trial court’s 2018 summary judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising out of asbestos-related bodily injury claims against plaintiffs Carrier Corporation (Carrier) and Elliott Company (Elliott). See Carrier Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 396 CA 18-02292, Mem. & Order (N.Y. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 4th Dep’t Oct. 9, 2020). The Fourth Department reversed the trial court’s ruling that, under New York’s “injury in fact trigger of coverage,” injury occurs from the first date of exposure to asbestos through death or the filing of suit as a matter of law. The parties agreed that, because the policy language at issue required personal injury to take place “during the policy period,” “the applicable test in determining what event constitutes personal injury sufficient to trigger coverage is injury-in-fact, ‘which rests on when the injury, sickness, disease or disability actually began.’” Id. at 3 (quoting Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Rapid-American Corp., 609 N.E.2d 506, 511 (N.Y. 1993)). The Fourth Department concluded that, in resolving the issue, the trial court erred by relying on inapposite decisions in other cases where: (1) the parties had stipulated or otherwise not disputed that first exposure triggered coverage[1]; or (2) the issue had not been resolved on summary judgment, but rather at trial based on expert medical evidence[2]. The Fourth Department further explained that, even if plaintiffs here had met their initial burden on summary judgment by submitting admissible evidence that asbestos-related injury actually begins upon first exposure, the defendant-insurer’s opposition – which included affidavits of medical experts contradicting that evidence and averring instead that “harm occurs only when a threshold level of asbestos fiber or particle burden is reached that overtakes the body’s defense mechanisms” – raised a triable issue of fact. Id. at 4. The Fourth Department also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the defendant-insurer was collaterally estopped on the “trigger” issue by a California appellate court’s decision in Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 690 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). The Fourth Department reasoned that the issues litigated in the two cases were not identical because, among other things, California and New York “apply different substantive law in determining when asbestos-related injury occurs.” Carrier, Mem. & Order at 4. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

    New California Standards Go into Effect July 1st

    July 01, 2014 —
    Garret Murai on his California Construction Law Blog reminded readers that the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the New Listing Law Requirements goes into effect on July 1st of this year. According to Murai, the new “California Building Energy Efficiency Standards include: (1) the 2013 California Energy Code, Part 6, (2) the 2013 California Administrative Code, Chapter 10, Part 1 and (3) the energy provisions of the 2013 CALGreen, Part II, Title, 25, of the California Code of Regulations.” Furthermore, Murai pointed out that “Assemby Bill 44, which amended the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act, also known as the Listing Law, was signed into law,” which requires prime contractors "to disclose the contractors license numbers of subcontractors performing work in excess of 0.5% of the prime contractor’s total bid or, in the case of bids for the construction of streets, highways, or bridges, in excess of 0.5% of the prime contractor’s total bid or $10,000, whichever is greater.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Product Liability Alert: “Sophisticated User” Defense Not Available by Showing Existence of a “Sophisticated Intermediary”

    November 26, 2014 —
    In Gottschall v. Crane Co., (No. A136516, Filed 10/8/2014, published 10/22/2014), the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, held a company that manufactured and sold asbestos-containing products could not prevail under the “sophisticated user” doctrine based on the contention that a “sophisticated intermediary” existed, in an action brought by the end user of the products. Decedent Robert Gottschall worked in a variety of shipyards for the U.S. Navy between 1957 and 1989. Defendant Crane Co. (“Crane”) manufactured and sold products containing asbestos to the Navy during that time. During his work at the various shipyards, decedent was exposed to asbestos and contracted mesothelioma. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Survey of New Texas Environmental and Regulatory Laws Enacted in the 88th Session (Updated)

    August 28, 2023 —
    This is a brief survey of many of the environmental and regulatory laws passed by the Texas Legislature and signed by the Governor in the 88th Regular Session of the Legislature, which ended in May 2023, although a special session has been called to address lingering matters. Altogether, more than 1,000 laws were enacted in this session, including a surprising number of water-related environmental bills. Water HB1565 relates to the functions of the Texas Water Development Board and continuation and functions of the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas Advisory Committee. Effective 9.1.23. HB1699 relates to the authority of the Evergreen Underground Water Conservation District to impose certain fees. Effective 6.9.23. HB1845 amends Section 37 of the Water Code to add Section 37.0045 relating to the licensing requirements for certain operators of wastewater systems and public water systems. Effective 9.1.23. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury and Alexandra Trahan, Pillsbury Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of