BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural 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


    'Perfect Storm' Caused Fractures at San Francisco Transit Hub

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces Three New Partners

    You Are Your Brother’s Keeper. Direct Contractors in California Now Responsible for Wage Obligations of Subcontractors

    Illinois Court Addresses Rip-And-Tear Coverage And Existence Of An “Occurrence” In Defective Product Suit

    Key California Employment Law Cases: October 2018

    Moving Toward a Telework Future: A Checklist of Considerations for Employers

    The Overlooked Nevada Rule In an Arena Project Lawsuit

    Construction Activity on the Upswing

    Real Estate Trends: Looking Ahead to 2021

    Chinese Billionaire Sues Local Governments Over Project Payment

    Traub Lieberman Partner Michael Logan and Associate Christian Romaguera Obtain Voluntary Dismissal in Favor of Construction Company Under the Vertical Immunity Doctrine

    Colorado Federal Court Confirms Consequetial Property Damage, But Finds No Coverage for Subcontractor

    First Railroad Bridge Between Russia and China Set to Open

    Does the UCC Apply to the Contract for the Sale of Goods and Services

    BWB&O Partner Jack Briscoe and Associate Anoushe Marandjian Win Summary Judgment Motion on Behalf of Homeowner Client!

    Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Shares Fall on Wind-Down Measure

    White House’s New Draft Guidance Limiting NEPA Review of Greenhouse Gas Impacts Is Not So New or Limiting

    Disaster Remediation Contracts: Understanding the Law to Avoid a Second Disaster

    Hyundai to Pay 47M to Settle Construction Equipment's Alleged Clean Air Violations

    Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor's Employee

    Florida Adopts Daubert Standard for Expert Testimony

    California Supreme Court Rejects Third Exception to Privette Doctrine

    Florida’s Fourth District Appeals Court Clarifies What Actions Satisfy Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Foundation Differences Across the U.S.

    Why Construction Law- An Update

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    BHA at the 10th Annual Construction Law Institute, Orlando

    Government Claims Act Does Not Apply to Actions Solely Seeking Declaratory Relief and Not Monetary Relief

    Milwaukee's 25-Story Ascent Stacks Up as Tall Timber Role Model

    Disgruntled Online Reviews of Attorney by Disgruntled Former Client Ordered Removed from Yelp.com

    Construction Spending Drops in March

    Las Vegas HOA Case Defense Attorney Alleges Misconduct by Justice Department

    First Circuit Limits Insurers’ Right to Recoup Defense Costs or Settlement Payments

    Design Professional Asserting Copyright Infringement And Contributory Copyright Infringement

    OSHA Announces Expansion of “Severe Violator Enforcement Program”

    Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Rise to One-Year High

    The Firm Hits the 9 Year Mark!

    Colorado Passes Construction Defect Reform Bill

    You Cannot Always Contract Your Way Out of a Problem (The Case for Dispute Resolution in Mega and Large Complex Construction Projects)

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (05/18/22)

    Getting U.S to Zero Carbon Will Take a $2.5 Trillion Investment by 2030

    Sixth Circuit Holds that Some Official Actions Taken in the “Flint Water Crisis” Could Be Constitutional Due Process Violations

    Hunton Insurance Partner, Larry Bracken, Elected to the American College of Coverage Counsel

    New Megablimp to Deliver to Remote Alaskan Construction Sites

    Save a Legal Fee: Prevent Costly Lawsuits With Claim Limitation Clauses

    More Regulations for Federal Contractors

    Building Safety Month Just Around the Corner

    What ‘The Curse’ Gets Wrong About Passive House Architecture

    Amazon Urged to Review Emergency Plans in Wake of Deadly Tornado

    2018 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Summary Judgment for Insurer Reversed Based on Expert Opinion

    May 30, 2022 —
    After the trial court discounted the insured's expert witness and granted summary judgment to the insurer, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed. Morales v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 1831 (Fla. Ct. App. March 15, 2022). The insureds' property was allegedly damaged by Hurricane Irma in 2017. They filed a claim with Citizens. Citizens sent its adjuster and eventually denied the claim because the policy did not cover damages caused by wear and tear. Further, there was no coverage for loss caused by "rain . . . unless a covered peril first damages the building causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain . . . enters through this opening." The insureds sued and Citizens moved for summary judgment. At the hearing, Citizens' expert, a civil engineer, concluded that there were no storm-created openings in the roof. The insureds engaged a licensed contractor, Steven Delgado, who stated that he found significant damage to the roofing system and water intrusion through the roof. He observed loose shingles which were most likely damaged during Hurricane Irma, allowing for high winds and airborne debris to create small openings permitting water intrusion. 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

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Policyholder Can “Stack” the Limits of Each Primary Policy After Asbestos Claim

    December 19, 2018 —
    A Georgia Court of Appeals judge recently ruled that Scapa Dryer Fabrics was entitled to $17.4 million worth of primary coverage from National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA for claims of injurious exposure to Scapa’s asbestos-containing dryer felts. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc., No. A18A1173, 2018 WL 5306693, at *1 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2018). Scapa sought coverage under five National Union policies issued from 1983–1987. The 1983, 1984 and 1985 National Union policies had limits of $1 million per occurrence and $1 million in the aggregate. The liability limits for the 1986 and 1987 renewal policies were amended by endorsement to $7.2 million. Scapa sought to recover the full $17.4 million from all five policies. National Union argued that a “Non-Cumulative Limits of Liability Endorsement” in the 1986 and 1987 policies limited Scapa’s recovery to only $7.2 million. Scapa sued National Union and its sister company, New Hampshire Insurance Company (from which Scapa purchased excess liability coverage), in Georgia state court. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Alexander D. Russo, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Russo may be contacted at arusso@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    NEHRP Recommendations Likely To Improve Seismic Design

    November 09, 2020 —
    Code-based earthquake engineering is on the verge of getting simpler, thanks to the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program’s recommendation to replace the traditional seismic hazard maps with an improved seismic hazards database. The recommendation is one of the most significant changes put forth in the 2020 update of the NEHRP seismic design provisions, which are the foundation for the prescriptive seismic design code for buildings and other structures. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Appellate Court Reinforces When the Attorney-Client Relationship Ends for Purposes of “Continuous Representation” Tolling Provision of Legal Malpractice Statute of Limitations

    October 20, 2016 —
    In Gotek Energy, Inc. v. Socal IP Law Group, LLP (No. B26668, October 12, 2016), the Second District Court of Appeal held that rather than the date on which a client file is transferred to new counsel, the attorney-client relationship ends for statute of limitations purposes when, using an objective standard, there is no “ongoing mutual relationship” nor evidence of “activities in furtherance of the relationship.” (Emphasis in opinion.) Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    “Other Insurance” and Indemnity Provisions Determine Which Insurer Must Cover

    September 01, 2011 —

    A policy’s “other insurance” clause and a contractual indemnity provision were at the root for determining which of two insurers had to cover for injuries at a construction site. Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 76061 (N.D. Calif. July 14, 2011).

    Hathaway was the general contractor at a demolition and construction project. Hathaway was insured by Zurich. Reinhardt Roofing was the roofing subcontractor. Reinhardt was insured by Valley Forge under a policy which named Hathaway as an additional insured. The subcontract also required Reinhardt to indemnify Hathaway for acts or omissions arising from Reinhardt’s work unless Hathaway was solely negligent.

    Four of Reinhardt’s workers were injured when a canopy roof on which they were working collapsed. At the time of the accident, Hathaway’s on-site supervisor was inspecting a gap in the canopy roof, but did not order Reinhardt’s workers to stop working. 

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    OSHA Investigating Bridge Accident Resulting in Construction Worker Fatality

    October 29, 2014 —
    SI Live reported that “[t]he federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has opened a probe into an early-morning truck accident at the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge that left a construction worker dead Wednesday.” The accident occurred in New York “when a truck laying asphalt backed into [the worker] and crushed him.” Ted Fitzgerald, OSHA spokesman, stated, “OSHA did respond and has opened an inspection to determine whether or not there were violations of workplace safety standards in connection with this fatality,” as quoted by SI Live. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

    October 28, 2011 —

    BusinessWire reports that the Chelsea Court Homeowners Association has settled their construction defect case for $5.4 million. That works out to $169,000 per unit, which BusinessWire describes as “California’s largest per-unit recovery known to be on record to date.”

    Most of the money in the settlement is coming from insurance companies for the builder and thirteen subcontractors. Issues included roof and window leaks, deck failures, and unsafe walkways.

    Read the full story...

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Another Reason to Always Respond (or Hensel Phelps Wins One!)

    September 16, 2019 —
    Here at Construction Law Musings, Hensel Phelps Construction Co. is best known as the company that got whipsawed between indemnity rules and the lack of a statute of limitations for state agencies. However a recent case out of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave them a win and illustrates, once again, that failing to appear or respond is never a good option. In Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Perdomo Industrial LLC, the Alexandria, VA federal court looked at an arbitration award entered for Hensel Phelps and against Perdomo under the Federal Arbitration Act. The facts of the case showed that Perdomo “double dipped” into the deep end of refusal or failure to respond. First of all, the contract required arbitration and any award was enforceable in any state or federal court having jurisdiction. Based upon this language, Hensel Phelps filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association against Perdomo and its surety, AAA sent notice to both Perdomo and Surety, and. . . neither responded or appeared at what was ultimately 8 days of hearings. After hearing Hensel Phelp’s evidence and the total lack of defenses from Perdomo and Surety, the panel issued an award in favor of Hensel Phelps, finding Perdomo LLC in default and holding Perdomo LLC and Allied World jointly and severally liable in the amount of $2,958,209.71 and Perdomo LLC individually liable in the amount of $7,917,666.30 plus interest. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com