BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco 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


    Chimney Collapses at South African Utility’s Unfinished $13 Billion Power Plant

    EPA Looks to Reduce Embodied Carbon in Materials With $160M in Grants

    Scotiabank Is Cautious on Canada Housing as RBC, BMO Seek Action

    Court Addresses HOA Attempt to Restrict Short Term Rentals

    Los Angeles Wildfires Will Cause Significant Insured Losses, Ranking Amongst the Most Destructive in California's History

    Brenner Base Tunnelers Conquer Peaks and Valleys in the Alps

    COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims Four Years Later: What Have We Learned?

    Insurer Could Not Rely on Extrinsic Evidence to Circumvent Its Duty to Defend

    House Bill Clarifies Start Point for Florida’s Statute of Repose

    Withdrawal of an Admission in California May Shift Costs—Including Attorneys’ Fees—Incurred in Connection with the Withdrawal

    NY Appeals Court Ruled Builders not Responsible in Terrorism Cases

    Is it the Dawning of the Age of Strict Products Liability for Contractors in California?

    Contractor Disputes Report Amid Amazon Warehouse Collapse Lawsuit

    "Repair Work" Endorsements and Punch List Work

    Utilities’ Extreme Plan to Stop Wildfires: Shut Off the Power

    Will Future Megacities Be a Marvel or a Mess? Look at New Delhi

    Apple to Open Steve Jobs-Inspired Ring-Shaped Campus in April

    Five Keys to Driving Digital Transformation in Engineering and Construction

    Mobile Home Owners Not a Class in Drainage Lawsuit

    Business Risk Exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 Found Ambiguous

    Federal Court Reiterates Broad Duty to Defend in Additional Insured Cases

    Benefit of the Coblentz Agreement and Consent Judgment

    Settlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National Union

    Seattle’s Tallest Tower Said Readying to Go On the Market

    The General Assembly Adds Some Clarity to Contracts and Unlicensed Contractors

    Inability to Confirm Coverage Supports Setting Aside Insured’s Default Judgment on Grounds of Extrinsic Mistake

    Chattanooga Bridge Collapse Likely Resulted From Impact

    California Supreme Court Rejects Insurers' Bid for Horizontal Exhaustion Rule in New Montrose Decision

    AB5, Dynamex, the ABC Standard, and their Effects on the Construction Industry

    Home Buyers Lose as U.S. Bond Rally Skips Mortgage Rates

    The Activist Group Suing the Suburbs for Bigger Buildings

    Plans Go High Tech

    Application of Frye Test to Determine Admissibility of Expert

    Can an App Renovate a Neighborhood?

    The Advantages of Virtual Reality in Construction

    California Case That Reads Like Russian Novel Results in Less Than Satisfying Result for Both Project Owner and Contractors

    The Law of Patent v Latent Defects

    A Trivial Case

    “Incidental” Versus “Direct” Third Party Beneficiaries Under Insurance Policies in Which a Party is Not an Additional Insured

    Inside New York’s Newest Architectural Masterpiece for the Mega-Rich

    Miller Act CLAIMS: Finding Protections and Preserving Your Rights

    Assert a Party’s Noncompliance of Conditions Precedent with Particularity

    2023 Executive Insights From Leaders in Construction Law

    The Johnstown Dam Failure, as Seen in the Pages of ENR in 1889

    Continuous Injury Trigger Applied to Property Loss

    Righting Past Wrongs Through Equitable Development

    Competitive Bidding Statute: When it Applies and When it Does Not

    South Carolina Supreme Court Asked Whether Attorney-Client Privilege Waived When Insurer Denies Bad Faith

    Property Owners Sue San Francisco Over Sinking Sidewalks

    Los Angeles Team Secures Summary Judgment for Hotel Owner & Manager in Tenant’s Lawsuit
    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

    Graham & Who May Trigger The Need To Protest

    December 23, 2023 —
    On May 30, 2023, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division I, issued a decision that appears to expand a contractor’s obligation with respect to WSDOT notice and claim procedures. In Graham Contracting, Ltd. v. City of Federal Way, No. 83494-1-I, 2023 WL 3721171 (Wash. Ct. App. May 30, 2023) (Unpublished), the Court held that under the 2016 WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (“Standard Specifications”), a Contractor must protest the actions of not only the “Engineer” but also the actions of any person or organization acting on behalf of the Owner. This case arises out of a public construction contract in which Graham Contracting Ltd (“Graham”) built a multi-million dollar roadway improvement for the City of Federal Way along a stretch of Pacific Highway. The appeal was from the trial court’s granting of the City’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims by Graham for extra time and money due to delays and impacts to Graham’s construction of the Project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hugo Fraga, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Fraga may be contacted at hugo.fraga@acslawyers.com

    Future Army Corps Rulings on Streams and Wetlands: Changes and Delays Ahead

    November 06, 2023 —
    New regulations published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dramatically reduce federal protections of previously regulated streams and wetlands. This change will lead to further controversy and litigation as the legal terms are applied to physical features on the ground leading to conflicting interpretations by the regulated public, environmentalists and federal agencies. Reprinted courtesy of Mark Sudol, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Amazon Hits Pause on $2.5B HQ2 Project in Arlington, Va.

    March 27, 2023 —
    Amazon is tapping the brakes on its $2.5-billion HQ2 second headquarters project in Arlington County, Va., announcing an indefinite delay to the start of the program’s 2.8-million-sq-ft second phase, known as PenPlace. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Duty to Defend Affirmed in Connecticut Construction Defect Case

    August 13, 2014 —
    According to an article by Matthew Vocci of Ober | Kaler in JD Supra, the Supreme Court of Conneticut affirmed in Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Netherlands Ins. “that allegations of years-long, continuing and progressive water intrusion caused by alleged construction defects triggered a duty to defend under CGL coverage language.” Vocci stated that the result demonstrated “the importance of the wording of the allegations relating to construction defects, resulting damage and when the parties were on notice of the issues. For property owners, contractors/builders/developers and their insurers, the allegations in the complaint guide what can be a difficult and contentious determination regarding whether the insured is provided with a defense from its CGL carrier.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ambiguity in Insurance Policy will be Interpreted in Favor of Insurance Coverage

    July 19, 2017 —
    An ambiguity in an insurance policy–after reading and interpreting the policy as a whole–will be construed against an insurer. This means an ambiguity will be construed in favor of insurance coverage (for the benefit of the insured) as opposed to against insurance coverage. This does not mean that every insurance policy contains an ambiguity. This also does not mean a court will interpret plain and ordinary words contrary to their conventional meaning or definition. But, as we all know, insurance policies are not the easiest of documents to decipher and ambiguities do exist relating to a particular issue or circumstance to the benefit of an insured. An insured that is dealing with specific insurance coverage issues should make sure they are working with counsel that looks to maximize insurance coverage, even if that means exploring ambiguities that will benefit an insured based on a particular issue or circumstance. An example of an ambiguity in an insurance policy relating to a particular issue that benefitted an insured can be found in the Florida Supreme Court decision of Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Macedo, 42 Fla. L. Weekly S731a (Fla. 2017). This case involved an automobile accident and the interpretation of an automobile liability policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

    Disputed Facts on Cause of Collapse Results in Denied Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

    January 31, 2018 —

    Although the court concluded that the policy covered a loss caused by the weight of snow, disputed facts as to the cause of the collapse led to the denial of cross-motions for summary judgment. Freeway Drive Inv., LLC v Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 2017 U.S Dist. LEXIS 207165 (E.D Mich. Dec. 18, 2017).

    Freeway Drive owned a single story commercial building insured by Employers Mutual Casualty Company (EMCC). The building sustained damage when trusses within the roof shifted and dropped, causing visible sagging. EMCC denied Freeway Drive's claim.

    Freeway Drive hired structural engineer Abdul Brinjikji to inspect the damage. He visited the building three times. On the first visit, he saw snow on the roof but could not estimate how much. Nevertheless, he opined that the collapse was caused by an overload of snow. He developed a plan to shore up the roof and repairs commenced.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawarii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    McCarthy Workers Test Fall-Protection Harnesses Designed to Better Fit Women

    November 09, 2020 —
    At project sites in Dallas, Houston and Atlanta, 27 McCarthy Building Co. women employees are testing a harness better suited to fit a diversity of body types than the more ubiquitous harnesses generally available at construction sites. Reprinted courtesy of Corinne Grinapol, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Retrofit without Repurposing in Los Angeles

    October 21, 2013 —
    The Los Angeles Times has continued its series on the seismic safety of buildings in downtown Los Angeles. According to the article, Los Angeles only requires seismic retrofits of buildings if their purpose is being changed. One investor, Izak Shomof, bought a residential hotel and kept it as one to avoid retrofitting the building. He converted an office building to upscale residences and so the building was strengthened. His son, Eric Shomof, keeps an office in the unreinforced building. He said if more retrofitting were required, “you’d see a lot more vacant buildings down here,” describing the process as “not cheap.” Depending on whether or when a building has changed its use, the concrete buildings of downtown Los Angeles may or may not be protected against failure in an earthquake. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of