BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation 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


    Housing Advocacy Group Moved to Dissolve New Jersey's Council on Affordable Housing

    Five Actions Construction and Energy Risk Managers Can Take to Avoid the Catastrophic Consequences of a Cyber Attack

    War-Torn Ukraine Looks to Europe’s Green Plans for Reconstruction Ideas

    Connecticutt Class Action on Collapse Claims Faces Motion to Dismiss

    Weslaco, Texas Investigating Possible Fraudulent Contractor Invoices

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule

    Occurrence Definition Trends Analyzed

    General Contractors Have Expansive Common Law and Statutory Duties To Provide a Safe Workplace

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “You Left Out a Key Ingredient!”

    FBI Makes Arrest Related to Saipan Casino Construction

    Coverage Denied for Insured's Defective Product

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    What You Need to Know to Protect the Project Against Defect Claims

    New Jersey Senate Advances Bad Faith Legislation

    Anatomy of a Data Center

    Five Years of Great Legal Blogging at Insurance Law Hawaii

    Court Confirms No Duty to Reimburse for Prophylactic Repairs Prior to Actual Collapse

    Class Action Certification by Association for “Matters of Common Interest”

    Green Buildings Could Lead to Liabilities

    Extreme Heat, Smoke Should Get US Disaster Label, Groups Say

    Recovering For Inflation On Federal Contracts: Recent DOD Guidance On Economic Price Adjustment Clauses

    Arbitration Denied: Third Appellate District Holds Arbitration Clause Procedurally and Substantively Unconscionable

    BWB&O’s Los Angeles Partner Eileen Gaisford and Associate Kelsey Kohnen Win a Motion for Terminating Sanctions!

    Haight Lawyers Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019

    A Lot of Cheap Housing Is About to Get Very Expensive

    How to Challenge a Project Labor Agreement

    Deadlines. . . They’re Important. Project Owner Risks Losing Claim By Failing to Timely Identify “Doe” Defendant

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

    The Peak of Hurricane Season Is Here: How to Manage Risks Before They Manage You

    HHMR Celebrates 20 Years of Service!

    U.S. District Court for Hawaii Again Determines Construction Defect Claims Do Not Arise From An Occurrence

    Hawaiian Electric Finalizes $2 Billion Maui Fire Settlement

    Fed. Judge Blocks Release of Records on FIU Bridge Collapse, Citing NTSB Investigation

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Who Needs Them”

    Insured's Experts Excluded, But Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

    Maryland Finally set to Diagnose an Allocation Method for Progressive Injuries

    Hunton Partner Michael Levine Appointed to Law360’s 2024 Insurance Authority Property Editorial Advisory Board

    Insured Survives Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case

    If You Don’t Like the PPP Now, Wait a Few Minutes…Major Changes to PPP Loan Program as Congress Passes Payroll Protection Program Flexibility Act

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    Quick Note: Unenforceable Language in Arbitration Provision

    Free Texas MCLE Seminar at BHA Houston June 13th

    New Jersey Rules that Forensic Lab Analysts Can’t be Forced to Testify

    ASCE Statement on House Passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2023 “Atlanta 500” List

    Environmental Roundup – May 2019

    When is an Indemnification Provision Unenforceable?

    Texas Plans a Texas-Sized Response to Rising Seas

    DIR Reminds Public Works Contractors to Renew Registrations Before January 1, 2016 to Avoid Hefty Penalty
    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

    Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate

    June 06, 2011 —

    In a 26 to 16 vote, the Nevada Assembly has passed Assembly Bill 401, which extends the time limit for legal action over home construction defects. According to the Las Vegas Sun, Assembly member Marcus Conklin, Democrat of Las Vegas, said the bill was about “keeping the consumer whole.” However, Ira Hansen, Republican of Sparks, told the sun that suits are happening before contractors can make repairs. The bill would allow attorney fees even if repairs are made.

    Read the full story…

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

    Claim for Punitive Damages Based on Insurers' Alleged Bad Faith Business Practices Fails

    September 05, 2022 —
    The court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss the bad faith claim based upon allegations of a general business practice of acting recklessly toward an insured's rights under the policy. Sandpiper Isle Condo. Ass'n v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114279 (M.D. Fla. June 28, 2022). Sandpiper suffered property damage from Hurricane Irma. Empire accepted the claim but there was disagreement on the value of the damage. An appraisal issued an award in favor of Sandpiper but Empire failed to pay the benefits for two years. 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

    New York Appellate Court Holds Insurer’s Failure to Defend Does Not Constitute a “Reasonable Excuse” Required to Overturn Judgment

    January 21, 2019 —
    A recent opinion by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (Second Department) highlights the potential risks for an insurer leaving an insured unrepresented while the insurer pursues other parties or insurers who may be primarily responsible for defending the insured. In refusing to overturn a default judgment entered against an insured while its insurer knew that a complaint had been filed but refused to defend, the New York court’s decision raises questions about how claims adjusters are to effectively manage new claims to prevent a default judgment being entered against the insured, while at the same time ensuring that the appropriate party or insurance company handles the insured’s defense. In Kaung Hea Lee v. 354 Management Inc., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7749 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 14, 2018) (354 Management) the underlying plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against the defendant insured due to its failure to answer the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs then moved to determine the extent of damages to which they were entitled by virtue of the default judgment. The defendant opposed that motion, relying on an affidavit from a senior liability claims adjuster employed by the defendant’s insurer. “In the affidavit, the claim adjuster stated that she did not assign an attorney to answer the complaint because the codefendant . . . was contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the defendant [insured], and she had been attempting to have either [the codefendant] or its insurer provide an attorney” for the defendant. However, it was determined that the claims adjuster knew about the plaintiffs’ complaint two weeks after the plaintiffs served it on the defendant and months before the plaintiffs moved for default judgment. Despite this knowledge, the defendant’s insurer did not provide a defense or, apparently, obtain an extension of time to respond to the complaint, which led to the default judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Testimony from Insureds' Expert Limited By Motion In Limine

    October 21, 2015 —
    The court considered the scope of testimony to be offered by the insureds' expert regarding a policy written for sanitation districts. Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewage Bd. v. Am. Alternative Ins. Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112210 (N.D. N.Y. Aug. 25, 2015). The city of Binghamton and the city's Sewage Board sued American Alternative Insurance Corporation (AAIC) for coverage for a collapsed wall. AAIC sought the limit to testimony of the insureds' expert, Paul B. Nielander, through a motion in limine. AAIC argued that Nielander was not qualified as an expert in interpreting insurance policies. His knowledge and experience was limited to insurance practices in other states and the words contained in policies other than AAIC policies. He had no experience with (i) negotiating, drafting, or performing under an AAIC policy, (ii) handling claims or interpreting policies written in New York State, or (iii) drafting policies or otherwise participating in what he conceded was a "niche market" of providing insurance to sanitation districts. Further, Neilander was not qualified to offer expert analysis of when the structural failure of the wall occurred because he had no training or experience as an engineer. 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

    Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable

    September 15, 2016 —
    Landowners and developers bogged in an EPA wetland determination were recently thrown a life line when the United States Supreme Court determined The Army Corps of Engineer’s (Corps) “jurisdictional determinations” (JD) regarding wetland designations are reviewable by the court. United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. Inc. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) landowners and developers who do not have the proper permits can face severe criminal and civil penalties for releasing any pollutant into “the waters of the United States.” Anybody stuck wading through the permitting process will tell you it is difficult, time consuming, expensive, and may eventually prohibit the intended use of the property. Furthermore, there is yet to be a consensus on the definition or scope of the term “waters of the US”. Consequently, a landowners or developers may never be certain whether a permit is necessary before conducting any activity that may discharge a pollutant into a “water of the United States”. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sean Minahan, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Minahan may be contacted at sminahan@ldmlaw.com

    Pennsylvania Reconstruction Project Beset by Problems

    October 15, 2014 —
    The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that “[t]he Penn Avenue reconstruction project in Garfield, described as ‘a comedy of errors’ by one neighborhood leader, remains months behind schedule and has gone well over budget.” The $4.7 million construction budget has increased “by at least $800,000,” according to the Pittsburgh post-Gazette. Problems included the underground utilities not on maps or mapped inaccurately, water lines breaking, and old streetcar tracks were discovered to have contaminated soil. Rick Swartz, executive director of the Bloomfield-Garfield Corp., told the Gazette that the project has been “plagued with problems and poor communication from the very start.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado Court of Appeals Decides the Triple Crown Case

    January 17, 2014 —
    In an earlier blog post, I discussed the case of Triple Crown Observatory Village Assn., Inc. v. Village Homes of Colorado, Inc., et al (2013 WL 5761028) because it presented the rare case where the Colorado Court of Appeals accepted an interlocutory appeal. Notably, the interlocutory appeal resulted from dismissal of the HOA case in which the trial judge directed the parties to arbitrate in lieu of a jury trial, under the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions that governed the community. The Court of Appeals decided the case on its merits on November 7, 2013, and its decision can be found at 2013 WL 6502659. (Note: this presently unpublished opinion may be subject to further appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.) The case resulted from an attempt by the HOA’s counsel to amend the mandatory arbitration provisions of the declarations before it filed suit. This amendment process took the form of soliciting signature votes of homeowners on a revocation resolution to repeal the specific provisions of the declarations that provided mandatory, binding arbitration as the sole remedy for disputes between the HOA and the developer and/or general contractor. The declarations required that 67% of homeowners vote in favor of amendment in order to modify the declarations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Berkeley W. Mann, Jr., Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Mann may be reached at mann@hhmrlaw.com

    U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Maritime Charters and the Specter of a New Permitting Regime

    February 24, 2020 —
    Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two important environmental cases—one that could change the approach to routine maritime charters and another that could introduce a potentially punishing permitting regime via a CWA citizen suit. Cleaning the Delaware: CITGO Asphalt Refining Company v. Frescati Shipping Company The CITGO case involves a large oil spill into the Delaware River, and who bears financial responsibility for the cleanup. CITGO chartered an oil tanker to bring Venezuelan crude oil to CITGO’s New Jersey refinery located on the Delaware River. The tanker struck a submerged and abandoned anchor within yards of the refinery, and a large and expensive oil spill resulted. In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act, both the shipper, Frescati Shipping Company, and the United States, paid for the immediate oil spill response, and CITGO was later sued for a large share of these costs based on the fact that it entered into a charter with Frescati, which obliged CITGO to provide a “safe berth.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that CITGO was liable under the principles of maritime law, meaning that CITGO was strictly liable for the spill even if no one knew that the anchor was present on the floor of the river or lurking in the waters of the Delaware River. CITGO has argued that this result is unfair and poses a threat to the maritime shipping industry if it is held to be strictly liable for this spill. It appears that this is may well be the majority rule that is applied when interpreting these routinely entered maritime charters. The Court’s decision will be immensely important to the shipping industry. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com