BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expert
    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


    Construction Defect Claim over LAX Runways

    How Small Mistakes Can Have Serious Consequences Under California's Contractor Licensing Laws.

    Out of the Black

    Colorado’s Workers’ Compensation Act and the Construction Industry

    Watchdog Opens Cartel Probe Into Eight British Homebuilders

    Don’t Overlook Leading Edge Hazards

    Sanctions Award Against Pro Se Plaintiff Upheld

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    Courts Will Not Rewrite Your Post-Loss Property Insurance Obligations

    The Importance of Engaging Design Professional Experts Early, with a Focus on Massachusetts Law

    Good News on Prices for Some Construction Materials

    California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013

    Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    And the Cyber-Beat Goes On. Yet Another Cyber Regulatory Focus for Insurers

    Private Statutory Cause of Action Under Florida’s Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act

    Norfolk Southern Agrees to $310M Settlement With Feds Over 2023 Ohio Derailment

    Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim

    Getting U.S to Zero Carbon Will Take a $2.5 Trillion Investment by 2030

    Oregon agreement to procure insurance, anti-indemnity statute, and self-insured retention

    Consumer Product Safety Commission Recalls

    Chinese Demand Rush for Australia Homes to Stay, Ausin Says

    Architects Group Lowers U.S. Construction Forecast

    Unjust Enrichment Claims When There Is No Binding Contract

    California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase “Ongoing Operations” In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations

    Federal Contractors Should Request Debriefings As A Matter Of Course

    Public Projects in the Pandemic Pandemonium

    Mich. AG Says Straits of Mackinac Tunnel Deal Unconstitutional

    Double-Wide World Cup Seats Available to 6-Foot, 221-Pound Fans

    Power of Workers Compensation Immunity on Construction Project

    Rescission of Policy for Misrepresentation in Application Reversed

    California Beach Hotel to Get $185 Million Luxury Rebuild

    Thoughts on New Pay if Paid Legislation

    Planes, Trains and Prevailing Wages. Ok, No Planes, But Trains and Prevailing Wages Yes

    Hudson River PCB Cleanup Lands Back in Court

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

    Manhattan Condo Resale Prices Reach Record High

    Insurers Dispute Sharing of Defense in Construction Defect Case

    CA Homeowners Challenging Alternate Pre-Litigation Procedures

    Fixing That Mistake

    Not So Unambiguous: California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Additional Insured

    You Need to be a Contractor for Workers’ Compensation Immunity to Apply

    COVID-19 Response: Environmental Compliance Worries in the Time of Coronavirus

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (01/18/23) – Construction Inventory, 3D Printing, and Metaverse Replicas

    Toronto Skyscraper With $1.2 Billion of Debt Has Been Put in Receivership

    The OFCCP’s November 2019 Updated Technical Assistance Guide: What Every Federal Construction Contractor Should Know

    Providing Your Insurer Prompt Notice

    Rhode Island District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Case for Spoliation Due to Potential Unfair Prejudice to Defendant

    Windstorm Exclusion Found Ambiguous

    ASCE Statement on Passage of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2022

    Panama Weighs Another Canal Expansion at Centennial Mark
    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

    A Termination for Convenience Is Not a Termination for Default

    April 22, 2024 —
    A termination for convenience is NOT a termination for default. They are NOT the same. They should NOT be treated as the same. I am a huge proponent of termination for convenience provisions because sometimes a party needs to be able to exercise a termination for convenience, but the termination is not one that rises to a basis for default. However, exercising a termination for convenience does not mean you get to go back in time and convert the termination for convenience into a termination for default. It does not work like that. Nor should it. An opinion out of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals – Williams Building Company, Inc. v. Department of State, CBCA 7147, 2024 WL 1099788 (CBCA 2024 – demonstrates a fundamental distinction between a termination for convenience and a termination for default, i.e., that you don’t get to conjure up defaults when you exercise a termination for convenience:
    Because a termination for convenience essentially turns a fixed-price construction contract into a cost-reimbursement contract, allowing the contractor to recover its incurred performance costs, the resolution of this appeal will involve identifying the total costs that [Contractor] incurred in performing this contract before [Government] terminated it for convenience. Since [Government] terminated the contract for convenience rather than for default, it no longer matters whether, in the past,[Contractor] acted intentionally in overstating the amount of its incurred costs or committed a contract breach. Ultimately, as permitted in response to a termination for convenience, [Contractor] will recover those allowable costs that [Contractor]establishes it incurred in performing the contract.
    Williams Building Company, supra.
    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

    Contractor Jailed for Home Repair Fraud

    November 27, 2013 —
    An Illinois man has received his third prison sentence for construction fraud, this time for five and a half years. Perry Porter was arrested in October and plead guilty to aggravated home repair fraud. Mr. Porter had charged a homeowner $1,000 per hour for a home repair that should have cost a total of $500. Mr. Porter has also been ordered to pay $6,700 in restitution to the victim. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Affordable Harlem Housing Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    July 09, 2014 —
    A family in Harlem, New York has demanded that Abyssinian Development Corporation pay $250,000 to fix the construction defects in their newly-purchased townhouse, according to The Daily News. Allegedly, “[i]nterior walls, bamboo-tiled floors and windowsills began to crack shortly after they moved in, and an improperly installed gas boiler system” stopped working, while “rain has caused cellar walls to deteriorate.” The townhouse is part of the “Harlem Village Homes II initiative that offers affordable houses in Harlem to those making below $130,000.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Ballot Initiative Seeks to Repeal Infrastructure Funding Bill

    September 25, 2018 —
    California voters will get to vote on November 6, 2018 on a ballot initiative to repeal an infrastructure funding bill signed by Governor Brown this past year that is estimated to raise more than $5 billion annually during the next ten years for road repairs and mass transit improvements in California. In 2017, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, which increased the excise tax on gasoline in the state by 12 cents per gallon, to 30 cents per gallon, and increasing vehicle registration fees from $25 to $175 dollars depending on the value of the vehicle. The last time the state’s gas tax was increased was in 1994 and the last time the federal gas tax was increased was in 1993. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Connecticut District Court to Review Proposed Class Action in Defective Concrete Suit

    July 13, 2017 —
    Thousands of Connecticut homeowners have fallen victim to a defective concrete epidemic. Over the last thirty years, the foundation in many homes, particularly in the Northeast region of the state, was built with a concrete aggregate that contained the mineral pyrrhotite. When exposed to the elements, including water and air, pyrrhotite oxidizes, resulting in cracking and disintegration over time. For Connecticut homeowners, this has resulted in disaster, both financially and to the foundations of their homes. Previously, many homeowners insurance policies provided coverage for a “collapse” caused by the “use of defective material . . . in construction, remodeling or renovation.” As the pyrrhotite epidemic became more prevalent, insurers altered the coverage afforded for a “collapse” in several ways that potentially minimized or eliminated coverage for these types of claims. Primarily, coverage for a “collapse” is now restricted to collapses that are “abrupt,” and coverage is excluded for buildings in danger of falling down or those that are still standing, even if evidence of cracking or settling is demonstrated. The insurers did not notify homeowners of the change. Thus, homeowners who renewed policies were not informed of a coverage reduction nor were they provided with a corresponding reduction in the amount of premium. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Casanova may be contacted at tlc@sdvlaw.com

    Partner Yvette Davis Elected to ALFA International’s Board of Directors

    November 15, 2021 —
    Congratulations to Haight Partner Yvette Davis who was elected by her peers to serve a three-year term on ALFA International’s 15 Member Board of Directors. The announcement was made during ALFA International’s Annual Business Meeting which took place in San Diego, California on October 20-22, 2021. About ALFA International ALFA International is the premier network of independent law firms. Founded in 1980, ALFA International was the first and continues to be one of the largest and strongest legal networks. We have 150 member firms throughout the world. Our 80 U.S. firms maintain offices in 95 of the 100 largest metropolitan areas. Our 70 international firms are located throughout Europe, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, Africa, Canada, Mexico and South America. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Yvette Davis, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com

    Do Municipal Gas Bans Slow the Clean Hydrogen Transition in Real Estate?

    June 06, 2022 —
    Clean hydrogen has the potential to play a significant role in the energy transition by serving as a carbon-free form of energy storage and heat production. In real estate, hydrogen could provide heating, replace or supplement natural gas in many applications, or store excess rooftop solar power. The United Kingdom, United States and Japan are all homes to pilot projects attempting to scale out hydrogen for use in communities. As we have discussed previously, many cities have recently passed ordinances banning the inclusion of natural gas infrastructure in new commercial and residential buildings. These bans can create headaches for real estate developers and inject uncertainty into development plans. Reprinted courtesy of Sidney L. Fowler, Pillsbury, Robert G. Howard, Pillsbury and Emily Huang, Pillsbury Mr. Fowler may be contacted at sidney.fowler@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Huang may be contacted at emily.huang@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Court Finds No Coverage Owed for Asbestos Losses Because Insured Failed to Prove Material Terms

    February 15, 2021 —
    In the long-tail insurance context, it is not unusual to have issues arise addressing “lost” or “missing” policies. In an opinion issued on January 22, 2021, a New York court ruled that an insurer did not owe coverage to its insured for underlying asbestos claims because the insured had failed to establish the material terms of a “lost” policy under which it sought coverage for the underlying claims. The lawsuit, Cosmopolitan Shipping Company, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Company,[1] arose out of a coverage dispute between Plaintiff Cosmopolitan Shipping Co., Inc. (Cosmopolitan) and its insurance carrier, Continental Insurance Company (CIC), in connection with bodily injury claims arising out of asbestos exposure. The case provides a good analysis of what an insured must do to establish coverage under a “lost” or “missing” policy. During and after World War II, Cosmopolitan chartered and operated a number of shipping vessels on behalf of United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA). In the 1980s, seamen who had worked on board Cosmopolitan’s vessels between 1946 and 1948 filed lawsuits against Cosmopolitan seeking damages for injuries arising out of alleged exposure to asbestos on Cosmopolitan’s vessels. Cosmopolitan sought coverage from CIC for the claims, alleging that CIC had insured Cosmopolitan’s vessels during the relevant time period under a protection and indemnity policy issued to the UNRAA (the P&I Policy). Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Marianne E. Bradley, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of