BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windows
    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


    Super Lawyers Recognized Five Lawyers from Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Group

    Insurance Policies Broadly Defining “Suits” May Prompt an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify During the Chapter 558 Pre-Suit Notice Process

    A Survey of New Texas Environmental Laws

    County Elects Not to Sue Over Construction Defect Claims

    10 Year Anniversary – Congratulations Greg Podolak

    Planned Everglades Reservoir at Center of Spat Between Fla.'s Gov.-Elect, Water Management District

    Stacking of Service Interruption and Contingent Business Interruption Coverages Permitted

    The Difference Between Routine Document Destruction and Spoliation

    Filing Motion to Increase Lien Transfer Bond (Before Trial Court Loses Jurisdiction Over Final Judgment)

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects at Trump Towers

    Domingo Tan Receives Prestigious Ollie Award: Excellence in Construction Defect Community

    Attorneys' Fee Clauses are Engraved Invitations to Sue

    BWB&O’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted in a Premises Liability Matter

    ADA Lawsuits Spur Renovation Work in Fresno Area

    All Aboard! COVID-19 Securities Suit Sets Sail, Implicates D&O Insurance

    Why Construction Firms Should Think Differently on the Issue of Sustainability

    Spearin Doctrine as an Affirmative Defense

    New Hampshire Asbestos Abatement Firm Pleads Guilty in Federal Fraud Case

    Design & Construction Case Expands Florida’s Slavin Doctrine

    A Termination for Convenience Is Not a Termination for Default

    Indemnity Payment to Insured Satisfies SIR

    Flawed Welding Faulted in Mexico City Subway Collapse

    Terminating the Notice of Commencement (with a Notice of Termination)

    Chicago Debt Document Says $8.5B O'Hare Revamp May Be Delayed

    Who Is To Blame For Defective — And Still LEED Certified — Courthouse Square?

    Cross-Motions for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings for COVID-19 Claim Denied

    Settlement Reached in Bridge Failure Lawsuit

    Is Solar the Next Focus of Construction Defect Suits?

    Henderson Land to Spend $839 Million on Hong Kong Retail Complex

    Handshake Deals Gone Wrong

    Fast-Moving Isaias Dishes Out Disruption in the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast

    Canada Home Resales Post First Fall in Eight Months

    UCP Buys Citizen Homes

    Two More Lawsuits Filed Over COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

    10 Haight Lawyers Recognized in Best Lawyers in America© 2023 and The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2023

    Indiana Federal Court Holds No Coverage for $50M Default Judgment for Lack of Timely Notice of Class Action

    Issues of Fact Prevent Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

    More Musings From the Mediation Trenches

    Designer of World’s Tallest Building Wants to Turn Skyscrapers Into Batteries

    Happy Thanksgiving from CDJ

    Lewis Brisbois Successfully Concludes Privacy Dispute for Comedian Kathy Griffin Following Calif. Supreme Court Denial of Review

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

    Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

    Flood Coverage Denied Based on Failure to Submit Proof of Loss

    California’s Wildfire Dilemma: Put Houses or Forests First?

    Insurance Client Alert: Denial of Summary Judgment Does Not Automatically Establish Duty to Defend

    Top Developments March 2024

    Part of the Whole: Idaho District Court Holds Economic Loss Rule Bars Tort Claims Related to Water Supply Line that was Part of Home Purchase

    University of Tennessee Commits to $1.9B Capital Plan

    The A, B and C’s of Contracting and Self-Performing Work Under California’s Contractor’s License Law
    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

    Lewis Brisbois Promotes 35 to Partnership

    March 15, 2021 —
    Lewis Brisbois is proud to announce the promotion of 35 of its associates to partner. With these promotions, Lewis Brisbois’ total partnership comes to 933 across its 53 offices. The diverse class of newly promoted attorneys includes 15 women, which brings the total percentage of female partners at Lewis Brisbois to 33%. Los Angeles Managing Partner Jana I. Lubert expressed her excitement about the recent promotions, stating, “On behalf of the Management Committee, I congratulate these outstanding attorneys on their achievement. They have demonstrated an exceptional level of dedication to Lewis Brisbois and to our clients, especially during this difficult past year. I am particularly proud of the diversity that exists across this group.” Similarly, San Bernardino and Chief Diversity Partner Rima M. Badawiya shared her enthusiasm over the diversity of the new partners, explaining, “This group of exceptional attorneys, who have been promoted based upon their extraordinary performance, represents the diversity that exists throughout Lewis Brisbois and our commitment to advancing those who achieve at the highest level.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Some Coastal Cities Are Sinking Even Faster Than Seas Are Rising

    June 20, 2022 —
    Rising seas have long been a threat to coastal cities. New research suggests that cities—particularly in Asia—are sinking as well, compounding the risks of frequent and severe flooding. In Karachi, land is sinking five times as fast as the sea level is rising, according to the study published this month in Geophysical Research Letters. Manila and Chittagong, Bangladesh’s second-largest city, are sinking at 10 times the rate of the rising waters. In China’s Tianjin, a coastal city about 150 kilometers southeast of Beijing, the ground is giving way at 20 times that speed. In those four cities alone, the phenomenon could affect roughly 59 million residents. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ditas B Lopez, Bloomberg

    Super Lawyers Selects Haight Lawyers for Its 2023 California Rising Stars List

    June 12, 2023 —
    Congratulations to Patrick McIntyre, Kathleen Moriarty and Kristian Moriarty who have been selected to the 2023 California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Super Lawyers magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in the practice of law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    Flying Solo: How it Helps My Construction Clients

    February 18, 2015 —
    Two and a half years ago, on July 1, 2010, I opened my solo practice. At the time, I really had no insight into how big this change would be from a positive, customer service, perspective. When I made the decision to go solo with my construction law practice, I knew I wanted to have flexibility to serve my client base of contractors and subcontractors in Virginia. I started some flat rate billing and had the ability to take cases that were below the dollar value of those that my old firm was willing to take. I also knew that I would be a master of my own destiny for better or worse (and it has been much more of the former than the latter). What I did not realize is the impact that owning my own business would have on my perspective. I have always believed that, in most cases where construction disputes occur, mediation is a great option. However mediation only occurs with conflict. For any business, whether construction or otherwise, conflict creates expenses that were not likely to have been anticipated or built in to the budget. Litigation is not something that most businesses can, or should, build into their operating budgets. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Affirmed: Insureds Bear the Burden of Allocating Covered Versus Uncovered Losses

    September 28, 2017 —
    The Second Circuit recently affirmed a district court decision that an insured bears the burden of establishing what portion of a jury verdict constitutes covered damages1. The case arose out of claims for property damage resulting from construction defects in a homebuilding project. The homeowners fired the construction manager, J. Barrows, Inc. (“JBI”), who then sued the homeowners in state court for unpaid fees (the “Underlying Action”). The homeowners counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract and negligence. JBI’s commercial general liability insurer, Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company (“Harleysville”), agreed to defend JBI under a reservation of rights. Reprinted courtesy of C. Lily Schurra, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Schurra may be contacted at cls@sdvlaw.com Ms. Byrd may be contacted at kab@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes

    September 07, 2020 —
    The Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.) In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies. Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.” A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot. The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy. The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG. Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status. Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy. In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy. Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered. Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
    Ms. Ward may be contacted at dward@bph-law.com

    Construction Cybercrime Is On the Rise

    May 26, 2019 —
    At the end of April, just as St. Ambrose Roman Catholic Church in Brunswick, Ohio, neared the close of a five-month-long, $5.5-million renovation, Father Bob Stec, the parish pastor, was surprised to hear that the contractor, Marous Brothers Construction, Willoughby, Ohio, had not received a $1.7- million payment. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Sawyer, Engineering News-Record and Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record Mr. Sawyer may be contacted at sawyert@enr.com Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Appraisal Award for Damaged Roof Tiles Challenged

    December 04, 2023 —
    The district court denied Travelers' motion for summary judgment and granted the insureds' motion in part regarding replacement of roof tiles damaged in a hail storm. Bertisen v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159649 (D. Colo. Sept. 8,2023). On May 8, 2017, the insureds' home was struck by a hailstorm that damaged their property. A Travelers inspector found damage to metal roof components, a deck, patio furniture and gutters. A partial payment of $6,381.04 was made. A further payment was made for personal property damaged by the storm. Travelers disputed that the hailstorm caused damage to all of the roof tiles. Travelers' adjustor reinspected the property and observed additional damages caused by hail and another payment of $6,605.22 was issued. 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