BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor 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


    Non-compliance With Endorsement Means No Indemnity Coverage

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation: A Redux

    Reminder: Just Being Incorporated Isn’t Enough

    Insurer's Failure to Settle Does Not Justify Multiple Damages under Unfair Claims Settlement Law

    Sioux City Building Owners Sue Architect over Renovation Costs

    You Say Tomato, I Say Tomahto. But When it Comes to the CalOSHA Appeals Board, They Can Say it Any Way They Please

    Prevent Costly Curb Box Damage Due on New Construction Projects

    Elevators Take Sustainable Smart Cities to the Next Level

    Winning Attorney Fees in Litigation as a California Construction Contractor or Subcontractor

    No Coverage for Home Damaged by Falling Boulders

    Scarce Cemetery Space Creates Prices to Die For: Cities

    Falling Tree Causing Three Injuries/Deaths Is One Occurrence

    Florida Chinese drywall, pollution exclusion, “your work” exclusion, and “sistership” exclusion.

    Release Of “Unknown” Claim Does Not Bar Release Of “Unaccrued” Claim: Fair Or Unfair?

    Be Careful with Good Faith Payments

    Don’t Spoil Me: Oklahoma District Court Rules Against Spoliation Sanctions

    Selected Environmental Actions Posted on the Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulator Actions

    How Technology Reduces the Risk of Façade Defects

    SCOTUS to Weigh Landowners' Damage Claim Against Texas DOT

    Cable-Free Elevators Will Soar to New Heights, and Move Sideways

    "Ordinance or Law" Provision Mandates Coverage for Roof Repair

    Lien Law Change in Idaho

    PFAS and the Challenge of Cleaning Up “Forever”

    Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

    First Lumber, Now Drywall as Canada-U.S. Trade Tensions Escalate

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: RACHEL CLANCY

    Suffolk Stands Down After Consecutive Serious Boston Site Injuries

    A Duty to Design and Maintain Reasonably Safe Roadways Extends to All Persons. (WA)

    Denver Airport's Renovator Uncovers Potential Snag

    Check The Boxes Regarding Contractual Conditions Precedent to Payment

    Another (Insurer) Bites The Dust: Virginia District Court Rejects Narrow Reading of Pollution Exclusion

    Sixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Under Kentucky Law

    Pensacola Bridge Halted Due to Alleged Construction Defects

    Sources of Insurance Recovery for Emerging PFAS Claims

    Brooklyn’s Hipster Economy Challenges Manhattan Supremacy

    Certain Private Projects Now Fall Under Prevailing Wage Laws. Is Yours One of Them?

    Where-Forum Art Thou? Is the Chosen Forum Akin to No Forum at All?

    Nailing Social Media: The Key to Generating Leads for Construction Companies

    ACEC Research Institute Releases New Engineering Industry Forecast

    How to Defend Stucco Allegations

    Insurers Must Defend Allegations of Faulty Workmanship

    Labor Shortages In Construction

    Where Mechanic’s Liens and Contracts Collide

    Houston Bond Issue Jump-Starts 237 Flood Control Projects

    Recycling Our Cities, One Building at a Time

    Nevada’s Home Building Industry can Breathe Easier: No Action on SB250 Leaves Current Attorney’s Fees Provision Intact

    Contractor Allegedly Injured after Slipping on Black Ice Files Suit

    Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

    Patagonia Will Start Paying for Homeowners' Solar Panels

    Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.
    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. Leveraging 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

    Don’t Put All Your Eggs in the Silent-Cyber Basket

    August 07, 2022 —
    The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently gave another reminder why cyber insurance should be part of any comprehensive insurance portfolio. In Construction Financial Administration Services, LLC v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 19-0020 (E.D. Pa. June 9, 2022), the court rejected a policyholder’s attempt to find coverage under its professional liability insurance for a social engineering incident that defrauded over $1 million. Construction Financial Administrative Services, which goes by CFAS, disburses funds to contractors. One of its clients, SWF Constructors, was hacked, and a bad actor posing as the client asked CFAS to distribute $600,000 to a sham third party. John Follmer, an executive at CFAS and the only person authorized to approve distribution of funds, approved it. The next day, the bad actor, again posing as the client, asked Follmer to transfer an additional $700,000. Follmer approved that distribution too. Reprinted courtesy of William P. Sowers, Jr., Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    You Have Choices (Litigation Versus Mediation)

    December 14, 2020 —
    As I sit here thinking about an impending trial in the Goochland County General District Court, it hit me that I also serve as a mediator in that court from time to time. Coincidentally, I will be “wearing both hats” (litigator and mediator) this week on back to back days. It will be interesting to have to switch roles so quickly on back to back days. While I don’t have the results of this thought experiment as I sit here typing this post, the timeline does bring into focus the two possible avenues to resolve a dispute. Neither is perfect and either works in the proper situation. Both lend a final “result” and closure to the dispute, they just each do so in a different manner and with a different role for me, the construction attorney/construction mediator. 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

    Enforcement Of Contractual Terms (E.G., Flow-Down, Field Verification, Shop Drawing Approval, And No-Damage-For-Delay Provisions)

    May 04, 2020 —
    What you contractually agree to matters, particularly when you are deemed a sophisticated entity. This means you can figuratively live or die by the terms and conditions agreed to. Don’t take it from me, but it take it from the Fourth Circuit’s decision in U.S. f/u/b/o Modern Mosaic, Ltd. v. Turner Construction Co., 2019 WL 7174550 (4th Cir. 2019), where the Court started off by stressing, “One of our country’s bedrock principles is the freedom of individuals and entities to enter into contracts and rely that their terms will be enforced.” Id. at *1. This case involved a dispute between a prime contractor and its precast concrete subcontractor on a federal project. The subcontractor filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. The trial court ruled against the subcontractor based on…the subcontract’s terms! So, yes, what you contractually agree to matters. Example #1 – The subcontractor fabricated and installed precast concrete panels per engineering drawings. However, the parking garage was not built per dimensions meaning the panels it fabricated would not fit. The subcontractor had to perform remedial work on the panels to get them to fit. The subcontractor pursued the prime contractor for these costs arguing the prime contractor should have field verified the dimensions. The problem for the subcontractor, however, was that the subcontract required the subcontractor, not the prime contractor, to field verify the dimensions. Based on this language that required the subcontractor to field verify existing conditions and take field measurements, the subcontractor was not entitled to its remedial costs (and they were close to $1 Million). Furthermore, and of importance, the Court noted that the subcontract contained a flow down provision requiring the subcontractor to be bound by all of the terms and conditions of the prime contract and assume those duties and obligations that the prime contractor was to assume towards the owner. While this flow-down provision may often be overlooked, here it was not, as it meant the subcontractor was assuming the field verification duties that the prime contractor was responsible to perform for the owner. 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

    A Tort, By Any Other Name, is Just a Tort: Massachusetts Court Bars Contract Claims That Sound in Negligence

    March 20, 2023 —
    In University of Massachusetts Building Authority v. Adams Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 2023 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 28, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1107, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts (Appeals Court) considered whether the lower court properly held that the plaintiff’s breach of contract and indemnification claims were time-barred by the statute of repose because they sounded in tort. The Appeals Court held that while the six-year statute of repose only applies to tort claims, they can also bar claims for breach of contract and indemnification if they sound in tort. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, finding that the plaintiff’s breach of contract and indemnification claims were just negligence claims disguised as non-tort claims. In 2013 and 2014, the University of Massachusetts (UMass) retained various contractors to renovate the dining hall for one of its campus buildings, which included the installation of new ductwork for the kitchen’s exhaust system. The dining hall opened for service in September 2014. In the Spring of 2018, it was discovered that the ductwork for the kitchen had collapsed. Further investigation revealed other deficiencies with the exhaust system. On December 1, 2020, UMass filed a lawsuit against various contractors, asserting negligence, breach of contract, and indemnification. The breach of contract claims alleged breach of express warranties. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Condos Down in Denver Due to Construction Defect Litigation

    November 06, 2013 —
    A new report suggests that fears of construction defect litigation may be the cause of the slump in condo building in the Denver area. The Denver Business Journal reports that the Denver Regional Council of Governments commissioned the study by Economic & Planning Systems. The conclusion of the report was that the only type of condominium likely to be built is high-cost units with high profit margins. This is not good news for the DRCOG, which is seeking to create more affordable housing. The report found that builders assess the likeliness of being sued “is nearly 100 percent,” that costs of addressing construction defects are 12% higher than at apartment complexes, and that preparing for litigation adds about $15,000 to the cost of a condo unit. One possible remedy is to reform Colorado’s construction defect laws. Bob Muphy, the mayor of Lakewook and an advocate of construction defect litigation reform, said that he sees “this as a verification of what I’ve been talking about.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Sub-Contracted Electrical Company

    February 14, 2023 —
    In a case brought before the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, Plaintiff alleged injury while performing work at a commercial premises in Brooklyn when he rolled his ankle on a jackhammered/chopped cellar floor slab while carrying a metal pipe from the main floor to the cellar on the subject premises. The property was owned by New York City entities, who were listed as Defendants in the underlying suit. A Construction Company was hired as the general contractor and construction manager for the work, who hired the Electrical Contractor to perform the main electrical fit out for the subject premises. The Electrical Contractor then hired Traub Lieberman’s client, the Electrical Subcontractor, to work on cellar-level conduit, cabling, backboxes, and lighting control systems. The Electrical Contractor, as Second Third-Party Plaintiff, brought suit against the Electrical Subcontractor, as Second Third-Party Defendant, for damages related to the underlying suit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Colleen E. Hastie, Traub Lieberman
    Ms. Hastie may be contacted at chastie@tlsslaw.com

    Drawing the Line: In Tennessee, the Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Apply to Contracts for Services

    December 11, 2023 —
    In Commercial Painting Co. v. Weitz Co. LLC, No. W2019-02089-SC-R11-CV, 2023 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (Weitz), the Supreme Court of Tennessee (Supreme Court) considered whether the economic loss doctrine barred the plaintiff’s claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and punitive damages arising out of a contract with the defendant for construction services. The court held that the economic loss doctrine only applies to product liability cases and does not apply to claims arising from contracts for services. This case establishes that, in Tennessee, the economic loss doctrine does not bar tort claims in disputes arising from service contracts. In Weitz, defendant, Weitz Co. LLC (Weitz), was the general contractor for a construction project and hired plaintiff Commercial Painting Co. (Commercial) as a drywall subcontractor. Weitz refused to pay Commercial for several of its payment applications, claiming that the applications were submitted untimely and contained improper change order requests. Commercial filed a lawsuit against Weitz seeking over $1.9 million in damages, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, enforcement of a mechanic’s lien, and interest and attorney’s fees under the Prompt Pay Act of 1991. Weitz filed a counterclaim for $500,000 for costs allegedly incurred due to Commercial’s delay and defective workmanship. In response, Commercial amended its complaint to add claims for fraud, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, rescission of the contract and $10 million in punitive damages. Commercial alleged that Weitz received an extension of the construction schedule but fraudulently withheld this information from Commercial and continued to impose unrealistic deadlines. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Kahana Feld Welcomes Six Attorneys to the Firm in Q4 of 2023

    January 16, 2024 —
    Kahana Feld is pleased to announce the addition of six attorneys to the team in the fourth quarter of 2023. We are excited to have each of these individuals on the team. In our Houston office, Kahana Feld welcomes Partner Donald Loving II and Attorney Elliott Wright. Mr. Loving is a member of the General Liability and Trucking & Transportation practice groups. He earned his Juris Doctor from the University of Houston and has over 30 years of litigation and trial experience, including working as staff & corporate counsel for several prominent insurance carriers including GEICO, Progressive, USAA and Travelers. Mr. Wright is a member of the Construction Defect, General Liability, and Trucking & Transportation practice groups. He earned his Juris Doctor from SMU Dedman School of Law, and has extensive litigation and insurance defense experience. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Linda Carter, Kahana Feld
    Ms. Carter may be contacted at lcarter@kahanafeld.com