BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut construction 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


    Boilerplate Contract Language on Permits could cause Problems for Contractors

    Don’t Put Yourself In The Position Of Defending Against An Accord And Satisfaction Defense

    Who Will Pay for San Francisco's $750 Million Tilting Tower?

    Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Enacted

    Suit Against Broker for Securing Inadequate Coverage Dismissed on Statute of Limitations Grounds

    Weed Property Owner Gets Smoked Under Insurance Policy

    Of Pavement and Pandemic: Liability and Regulatory Hurdles for Taking It Outside

    Beam Cracks Cause Closure of San Francisco’s New $2B Transit Center

    Formal Request for Time Extension Not Always Required to Support Constructive Acceleration

    Be Careful with Mechanic’s Lien Waivers

    Jury Could Have Found That Scissor Lift Manufacturer Should Have Included “Better” Safety Features

    SEC Climate Change Disclosure Letter Foreshadows Anticipated Regulatory Changes

    General Partner Is Not Additional Insured For Construction Defect Claim

    New York Court Holds Insurer Can Recover Before Insured Is Made Whole

    AFL-CIO Joins in $10 Billion Infrastructure Plan

    Nevada Supreme Court Holds That Insureds Can Use Extrinsic Evidence to Prove Duty to Defend

    Quick Note: Insurer Must Comply with Florida’s Claims Administration Act

    The G2G Year in Review: 2021

    Fewer NYC Construction Deaths as Safety Law Awaits Governor's Signature

    Being deposed—not just for dictators! Depositions in the construction lawsuit (Law & Order: Hard Hat files Part 5)

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects at Trump Towers

    Certificates of Insurance May Confer Coverage

    Would You Trade a Parking Spot for an Extra Bedroom?

    Record Home Sales in Sydney Add to Bubble Fear

    U.S. Firm Helps Thais to Pump Water From Cave to Save Boys

    Why You May Not Want a Mandatory Mediation Clause in Your Construction Contract

    Is Arbitration Final and Binding?

    Arbitration and Mediation: What’s the Difference? What to Expect.

    Amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 – Expert Testimony

    OSHA Finalizes Rule on Crane Operator Qualification and Certification

    Just a House That Uses 90 Percent Less Energy Than Yours, That's All

    Vacant Property and the Right of Redemption in Pennsylvania

    California Contractors: New CSLB Procedure Requires Non-California Corporations to Associate All Officers with Their Contractor’s License

    Several Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2022 Top Lawyers!

    Building Group Has Successful 2012, Looks to 2013

    Former Superintendent Sentenced in Rhode Island Tainted Fill Case

    Haight Welcomes Elizabeth Lawley

    Los Angeles Considering Census of Seismically Unstable Buildings

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twelve White and Williams Lawyers

    Gordie Howe Bridge Project Team Looks for a Third Period Comeback

    Water Leak Covered for First Thirteen Days

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    OSHA Issues COVID-19 Guidance for Construction Industry

    Indiana Court Enforces Contract Provisions rather than Construction Drawing Markings

    US-Mexico Border Wall Bids Include Tourist Attraction, Solar Panels

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

    Second Circuit Brings Clarity To Scope of “Joint Employer” Theory in Discrimination Cases

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Hold the Pickles, Hold the Lettuce?”

    Proposed Changes to Federal Lease Accounting Standards

    Seventh Circuit Confirms Additional Insured's Coverage for Alleged Construction Defects
    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

    In South Carolina, Insurer's Denial of Liability Does Not Waive Attorney-Client Privilege for Bad Faith Claim

    October 14, 2019 —
    Determining the scope of discovery can be challenging, particularly when an insurance bad faith claim is involved. Courts often face the difficult decision of weighing the importance of preserving attorney-client privilege with the public policy rationale of protecting an insured against their insurer’s bad faith behavior. The Supreme Court of South Carolina recently recognized this dilemma by rejecting a hardline approach to bad faith discovery disputes and adopting a case-by-case analysis. The case, In re Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.,1 arose out of a construction defect claim. ContraVest Construction Company (“ContraVest”) constructed a development in South Carolina and was later sued for alleged defective construction. ContraVest sought coverage for the lawsuit from its insurers, including Mount Hawley Insurance Company (“Mount Hawley”), which had provided excess commercial liability insurance to ContraVest during the relevant timeframe. Mount Hawley denied the claim, which prompted ContraVest to sue it for bad faith, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Reprinted courtesy of Ashley L. Cooper, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Cooper may be contacted at alc@sdvlaw.com Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Mutual Or Concurrent Delay Caused By Subcontractors

    March 23, 2020 —
    How are delay damages treated when two subcontractors cause a mutual or concurrent delay to the project? Assume multiple subcontractors concurrently contributed to an impact to the critical path resulting in a delay to the project. The delay caused the prime contractor to: (1) be assessed liquidated damages from the owner and (2) incur extended general conditions. The prime contractor will be looking to the subcontractors for reimbursement for any liquidated damages it is assessed along with its extended general conditions costs. There is really no great case that addresses this point when two (or more) subcontractors mutually or concurrently delay the project. It is also not uncommon, and frankly expected, that a subcontractor will point the finger at another subcontractor for the cause of the delay or that another subcontractor was concurrently delaying the project. The prime contractor should absolutely, without any exception, undertake efforts with a scheduling consultant to allocate the delay caused by subcontractors. Taking an approach that joint and several liability applies between multiple subcontractors and/or not trying to apportion delay because the subcontractors concurrently delayed the critical path at the same time is probably not the best approach. The prime contractor should have an expert render an opinion as to the allocation of the delay period amongst responsible subcontractors that delayed the critical path. Not doing so, in my opinion, is a mistake. 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

    Ambitious Building Plans in Boston

    November 18, 2011 —

    Although most are unlikely to change the Boston skyline, there are several large projects on the drawing boards. The site BostInnovation covered ten of them in a recent post. Downtown Boston will be the site of several of these large projects, including three towers to be added to the Christian Science Plaza, a 404-unit residential tower in the Theater District, and perhaps the largest of these projects, a 47-story tower to be built over Copley Plaza, which will tower over the adjacent buildings. None of the planned buildings will challenge the Hancock Tower’s 60 stories.

    Read the full story…

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

    Water Seepage, Ensuing Mold Damage Covered by Homeowner's Policy

    August 13, 2014 —
    The appellate court reversed the trial court's determination that the policy covered only mold damage, but not damage caused by water seepage. Henderson v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 539 (Ga. Ct. App. July 16, 2014). The homeowner's policy covered losses caused by constant seepage or leakage of water or the presence of condensation or moisture over a period of time. The insureds also paid for additional coverage for "ensuing mold . . . caused by or resulting from" one of the covered risks, including water seepage. Ms. Henderson discovered a puddle of water in her kitchen and contacted Georgia Farm Bureau. The insurer's contractor tore out a section of the floor, but found no other problems of water seepage. Later, the Hendersons removed another part of the floor and discovered standing water and black mold underneath. The Hendersons had to vacate their house for one year. 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

    What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

    March 18, 2019 —
    In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer is that “If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added). But how do you determine whether a plaintiff obtained a more favorable judgment when the 998 offer is silent with respect to whether it includes costs? In Martinez v. Eatlite One, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1181, 1182–83, the defendant made a 998 offer of $12,001 that was silent regarding the treatment of attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer, and the jury ultimately awarded plaintiff damages of $11,490. Id. In resolving the parties’ competing memoranda of costs and plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees, the trial court awarded plaintiff her costs and attorneys’ fees. Id. at 1182. The trial court reasoned that plaintiff had obtained a more favorable judgment than the 998 offer because she was entitled to pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees under the statute, which meant plaintiff’s ultimate recovery exceeded the 998 offer when added to the judgment. Id. at 1183. In other words, the court added plaintiff’s pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees to the $11,490 verdict for the purposes of determining whether the “judgment” was greater than the 998 offer of $12,001. Id. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

    Haight Welcomes Robert S. Rucci

    August 26, 2015 —
    Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP welcomes new partner Robert S. Rucci. Mr. Rucci joins Haight’s San Diego office in the Construction Law, General Liability and Risk Management & Insurance Law Practice Groups. For 25 years, Mr. Rucci has specialized in defending design professionals, businesses and their employees in addition to representing clients against declaratory relief, breach of contract and bad faith litigation. During his career, he has tried 60 cases to defense verdict and successfully resolved countless matters via mediation, arbitration and settlement conference. His extensive litigation experience is invaluable to our clients. Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP 402 West Broadway Suite 1850 San Diego, CA 92101 www.hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert S. Rucci, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Rucci may be contacted at rrucci@hbblaw.com

    Tech to Help Contractors Avoid Litigation

    November 01, 2022 —
    Risk mitigation is a bigger part of managing construction projects than most people outside the industry realize. Construction is a risky business by nature. However, with the right tools, contractors can protect their businesses from costly litigation and keep jobsites safer and more productive. Modern technology helps increase project visibility for internal and external stakeholders, helping them monitor risks and resolve potential issues as quickly as possible. How does increased visibility reduce risk? The most common causes of litigation in construction are quality issues, schedule delays and injuries. Each of these risks can be reduced with better communication and documentation. Reprinted courtesy of Brian Poage, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Putting 3D First, a Model Bridge Rises in Norway

    June 21, 2021 —
    When the Norwegian Public Roads Administration asked the design-build team of Sweco, PNC, Armando Rito Engenharia and Isachsen to deliver a 643-meter-long concrete box-girder bridge completely in 3D, designers with Armando Rito were initially a bit skeptical. In the firm’s home country of Portugal, it had used building information modeling on some projects, “but not in terms of bridges, and not this advanced,” says Tiago Vieira, the firm’s design team leader. “Norway is more advanced regarding this type of methodology than other countries.” Reprinted courtesy of Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of