BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant 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


    Indiana Court of Appeals Holds That Lease Terms Bar Landlord’s Carrier From Subrogating Against Commercial Tenant

    Five New Laws to Know Before They Take Effect On Jan. 1, 2022

    Render Unto Caesar: Considerations for Returning Withheld Sums

    Coverage, Bad Faith Upheld In Construction Defect Case

    Effective Zoning Reform Isn’t as Simple as It Seems

    The Best Lawyers in America© Peer Review Names Eight Newmeyer & Dillion Partners in Multiple Categories and Two Partners as Orange County’s Lawyers of the Year in Construction and Insurance Law

    2018 Super Bowl US. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis

    With No Evidence of COVID-19 Being Present, DC Trial Court Finds No Claim for Business Interruption

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose in June at a Slower Pace

    You Cannot Arbitrate Claims Not Covered By The Arbitration Agreement

    Dispute Resolution Provision in Subcontract that Says Owner, Architect or Engineer’s Decision Is Final

    Sarah P. Long Expands Insurance Coverage Team at Payne & Fears

    Evergrande’s Condemned Towers on China’s Hawaii Show Threat

    2013 May Be Bay Area’s Best Year for Commercial Building

    Arkansas Federal Court Fans the Product Liability Flames Utilizing the Malfunction Theory

    Construction Industry on the Comeback, But It Won’t Be the Same

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Close Call?”

    Cleveland Condo Board Says Construction Defects Caused Leaks

    Jean Nouvel’s NYC ‘Vision Machine’ Sued Over Construction Defects

    No Coverage Under Installation Policy When Read Together with Insurance Application

    Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)

    Temecula Office Secures Approval for Development of 972-Acre Community on Behalf of Pulte Homes

    What You Need to Know About Additional Insured Endorsements

    Greg Dillion & Newmeyer Dillion Named 2019 Good Scout Award Recipient

    The Activist Group Suing the Suburbs for Bigger Buildings

    A Riveting (or at Least Insightful) Explanation of the Privette Doctrine

    Wow! A Mechanic’s Lien Bill That Helps Subcontractors and Suppliers

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded "Because Of" Property Damage Are Covered by Policy

    Ninth Circuit Holds Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Applies Beyond All-Risk Policies

    CDC Issues Moratorium on Residential Evictions Through 2020

    Denial of Claim for Concealment or Fraud Reversed by Sixth Circuit

    Return-to-Workplace Checklist: Considerations and Emerging Best Practices for Employers

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Apparently, It’s Not Always Who You Know”

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

    Understanding Entitlement to Delays and Proper Support

    No Coverage for Property Damage That is Limited to Work Completed by Subcontractor

    Will Claims By Contractors on Big Design-Build Projects Ever End?

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers®

    Claims Made Insurance Policies

    COVID-19 Business Closure and Continuity Compliance Resource

    Homeowners Should Beware, Warn Home Builders

    eRent: Construction Efficiency Using Principles of the Sharing Economy

    New Addition To New Jersey Court Rules Impacts More Than Trial Practice

    COVID-19 Win for Policyholders! Court Approves "Direct Physical Loss" Argument

    Builders Association Seeks to Cut Down Grassroots Green Building Program (Guest Post)

    Timely Written Notice to Insurer and Cooperating with Insurer

    Maryland Contractor Documents its Illegal Deal and Pays $2.15 Million to Settle Fraud Claims

    As Florence Eyes East Coast, Are You Looking At Your Insurance?

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/16/24) – Chevron Ruling’s Impact on Construction Industry, New Kind of Public Housing and Policy Recommendations from Sustainable Building Groups

    New Jersey Court Upholds Registration Requirement for Joint Ventures Bidding on Public Works Contracts
    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

    Insurers May Not Be Required to Defend Contractors In a Florida §558 Proceeding

    November 06, 2018 —
    In recent holding, the Florida Supreme Court held that an insurer may not have a duty to defend a contractor in a Florida §558 proceeding. Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes sets forth procedural requirements which must be met before a claimant may file a construction defect action. These requirements include serving a contractor, subcontractor or supplier with written notice of the claim. The contractor, in turn, must serve a written response to the notice of claim in which the contractor provides either an offer to repair the alleged construction defect at no cost to the claimant, resolution of the claim through a monetary payment, a statement disputing the claim, or a statement that any monetary payment will be determined by the recipient’s insurer. The claimant may file suit if the contractor disputes the claim and refuses to remedy the alleged defect or provide monetary compensation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Erik Simpson, Gordon & Rees
    Mr. Simpson may be contacted at esimpson@grsm.com

    Does “Faulty Workmanship” Constitute An Occurrence Under Your CGL Policy?

    January 08, 2024 —
    There is nothing more scintillating than an insurance coverage dispute, right? Well, some folks would agree with this sentiment. Others would spit out their morning coffee in disagreement. Regardless of where you fall in the spectrum, they are always important because maintaining insurance is a NECESSARY part of business, particularly in the construction industry. The ideal is to have insurance that covers risks you are assuming in the performance of your work. Sometimes, insurance coverage disputes provide valuable insight, even in disputes outside of Florida. Recently, the Western District of Kentucky in Westfield Insurance Co. v. Kentuckiana Commercial Concrete, LLC, 2023 WL 8650791 (W.D.KY 2023), involved such a dispute. While different than how Florida would treat the same issue, it’s still noteworthy because it sheds light into how other jurisdictions determine whether “faulty workmanship” constitutes an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (CGL) policy. 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

    Loss Caused by Subcontractor's Faulty Work Covered in Georgia

    January 17, 2013 —

    The Georgia Court of Appeals found a subcontractor was covered under a CGL policy for loss caused by alleged faulty workmanship. Maxum Indem. Co. v. Jimenez, 2012 Ga. App. LEXIS 970 (Ga. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2012).

     

    Jimenez was hired as a subcontractor to install pipes for a dormitory construction project at Georgia Southern University. Subsequent to the construction, a pipe burst occurred at the dormitory, causing damage to several units. After a jury trial, Jimenez was found liable for $191,382 in damages that arose from his negligent pipe work. 

     

    Jimenez was insured under a CGL policy issued by Maxum. Maxum filed a suit for a declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that the claim against Jimenez was not covered.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Did New York Zero Tolerance Campaign Improve Jobsite Safety?

    December 13, 2021 —
    Construction work is one of the most dangerous jobs in America, accounting for 19% of all workplace deaths in 2019. In New York City, that number is almost 50% higher, with construction accidents accounting for a quarter of all workplace deaths. One of the most positive developments in this area, despite the presence of COVID-19, has been the recent implementation of the “Zero Tolerance” campaign by the New York City’s Department of Buildings. The goal of the DOB’s latest construction safety campaign was to reduce the number of building site injuries and fatalities by implementing a zero-tolerance standard. While it is too premature to measure the program’s efficiency, a preliminary analysis of the first three months’ results appear to be nothing short of impressive. Reprinted courtesy of Neil Flynn, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Flynn may be contacted at nf@plattalaw.com

    California Supreme Court Declines to Create Exception to Privette Doctrine for “Known Hazards”

    September 13, 2021 —
    In Gonzalez v. Mathis (Aug. 19, 2021, S247677) __ Cal.5th___, the California Supreme Court reversed an appellate decision holding that a landowner may be liable to an independent contractor, or the contractor’s workers, for injuries resulting from “known hazards,” as running contrary to the Privette doctrine. In Gonzalez, the contractor, who specialized in washing skylights, slipped and fell while accessing the landowner’s particularly hard to reach skylight from a narrow retaining wall that was allegedly covered in loose gravel and slippery. (Slip opn., p. 3.) While the trial court initially granted the landowner summary judgment pursuant to the Privette doctrine, the appellate court reversed and held that the landowner had a responsibility to take reasonable safety precautions where there was a known safety hazard on the landowner’s premises. (Id. at p. 6.) Whether the landowner could have taken various safety precautions also raised disputed issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. (Ibid.) However, the California Supreme Court concluded that no broad, third exception to the Privette doctrine lies; “unless a landowner retains control over any part of the contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury [citation], it will not be liable to an independent contractor or its workers for an injury resulting from a known hazard on the premises.” (Slip opn., p. 2.) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tracy D. Forbath, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Forbath may be contacted at Tracy.Forbath@lewisbrisbois.com

    Domtar Update

    June 11, 2014 —
    On May 29, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur—i.e., the permission to appeal—in the controversial subrogation case, Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Domtar Paper Co., 77 A.3d 1282 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). In its order granting the relief to Liberty Mutual, a workers’ compensation insurer, the Supreme Court set forth the narrow issue to be decided on appeal: “Does Section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 671, allow the employer/insurer to step into the shoes of the insured employee to subrogate against the tortfeasor?” In Domtar, Liberty Mutual was caused to incur approximately $35,000 in compensation benefits which it paid on behalf of George Lawrence, an employee of Liberty Mutual’s insured, for injuries he sustained in a work-related accident. Mr. Lawrence chose not to file an independent personal injury lawsuit. As a result, in order to recover its lien interests, Liberty Mutual sued the third parties responsible for causing Mr. Lawrence’s work-related injuries directly, having become subrogated to the rights of Mr. Lawrence by virtue of Liberty Mutual’s workers’ compensation expenditure on his behalf. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com

    Wharf Holdings to Sell Entire Sino-Ocean Stake for $284 Million

    December 10, 2015 —
    Wharf Holdings Ltd., a Hong Kong-based real-estate developer, said it has agreed to sell its entire stake in Sino-Ocean Land Holdings Ltd. for HK$2.2 billion ($284 million) to an undisclosed buyer, three days after Anbang Insurance Group Co. purchased about a fifth of the Chinese builder’s shares. Wharf will sell 445 million shares, or 5.93 percent of Sino-Ocean Land’s stake, for HK$5 each, the company said in a statement on its website on Thursday. It expects to complete the transaction next week. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News

    Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform: HB 17-1279 Approved by Colorado Legislature; Governor’s Approval Imminent

    June 05, 2017 —
    Colorado developers frequently cite Colorado’s Construction Defect Action Reform Act (CDARA) as an obstacle to building new condominiums in the state. Developers contend that the law makes it too easy for condo boards to sue developers for workmanship issues, however trivial. As a result, Colorado has seen significant growth in the development of rental apartments, while development of new, for-sale, multi-unit housing, has declined in the state. In 10 years, new condo development in Colorado dropped from 20 percent to just 3 percent of total new-housing starts. Recognizing this issue, Governor Hickenlooper and the Colorado Legislature have taken an interest in reforming CDARA by, among other things, making it more difficult for condo boards and associations to sue construction professionals. Well on its way to becoming law, HB 17-1279 does exactly that. After the enactment of HB 17-1279, the executive boards of homeowners’ associations (HOA) in common interest communities will have to satisfy three broad elements before bringing suit against a construction professional on behalf of the community’s individual unit owners. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Erik G. Nielsen, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Nielsen may be contacted at egnielsen@swlaw.com