BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect 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


    Nonresidential Construction Employment Expands in August, Says ABC

    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is Proud to Announce Jeannette Garcia Has Been Elected as Secretary of the Hispanic Bar Association of Orange County!

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    Architectural Firm Disputes Claim of Fault

    What is Bad Faith?

    Connecting IoT Data to BIM

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Wrap Music to an Insurer’s Ears?”

    Pentagon Has Big Budget for Construction in Colorado

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Win Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Favor of Insurer

    Managing Once-in-a-Generation Construction Problems – Part II

    Labor Shortage Confirmed Through AGC Poll

    "Multiple Claims" Provisions on Contractor's Professional Liability Policy Creates a Trap for Policyholders

    KY Mining Accident Not a Covered Occurrence Under Commercial General Liability Policy

    Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolute Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage For Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

    No Coverage for Tenant's Breach of Contract Claims

    BUILD Act Inching Closer To Reality

    Court of Appeals Invalidates Lien under Dormancy Clause

    Hunton Offers Amicus Support in First Circuit Review of “Surface Water” Under Massachusetts Law

    Ten Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the Best Lawyers in America© 2019

    Disgruntled Online Reviews of Attorney by Disgruntled Former Client Ordered Removed from Yelp.com

    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

    Homebuyers Aren't Sweating the Fed

    New Executive Order: Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All

    New OSHA Vaccination Requirements For Employers With 100 Or More Employees (And Additional Advice for California Employers)

    West Virginia Couple Claim Defects in Manufactured Home

    The Preservation Maze

    Contractor Side Deals Can Waive Rights

    Todd Seelman Recognized as Fellow of Wisconsin Law Foundation

    An Architect Uses AI to Explore Surreal Black Worlds

    Safety Accusations Fly in Dispute Between New York Developer and Contractor

    Kiewit Hired as EPC for Fire-Damaged Freeport Gas Terminal Fix

    Virginia Families Hope to Sue over Chinese Drywall

    The U.S. Flooded One of Houston’s Richest Neighborhoods to Save Everyone Else

    No Friday Night Lights at $60 Million Texas Stadium: Muni Credit

    Insured's Testimony On Expectation of Coverage Deemed Harmless

    You’ve Been Suspended – Were You Ready?

    Enforceability of Contract Provisions Extending Liquidated Damages Beyond Substantial Completion

    White and Williams Ranked in Top Tiers of "Best Law Firms"

    Wildfires Threaten to Make Home Insurance Unaffordable

    Boston Team Obtains Complete Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in Professional Liability Matter

    Michael Baker Intl. Settles Federal Pay Bias Allegations

    Coverage Issues: When You Need Your Own Lawyer in a Construction Defect Suit

    How Algorithmic Design Improves Collaboration in Building Design

    Pending Sales of Existing Homes in U.S. Decline for Eighth Month

    Occurrence Definition Trends Analyzed

    Construction Firm Sues City and Engineers over Reservoir Project

    Contract, Breach of Contract, and Material Breach of Contract

    Court Holds That Property Insurance Does Not Cover Economic Loss From Purchasing Counterfeit Vintage Wine

    Be Careful with “Green” Construction

    Courthouse Reporter Series - How to Avoid Having Your COVID-19 Expert Stricken
    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

    Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Act of 2020: Yet Another Reason to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses

    May 25, 2020 —
    Business interruption coverage stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic is a matter of intense debate. The number of policyholder lawsuits continues to rise sharply and an increasing number of state legislatures are considering laws to specifically address such coverage. Now, additional proposed legislation at the federal level could completely and definitively resolve the debate in favor of coverage for policyholders. The Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Act of 2020 On April 14, Congress introduced the Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Act of 2020 (the “Act”) which, if passed, would require insurance companies to cover business interruption losses due to “viral pandemics, forced closures of businesses, mandatory evacuations, and public safety power shut-offs.” The bill further states:
    Any exclusion in a contract for business interruption insurance that is in force on the date of the enactment of this Act shall be void to the extent that it excludes losses specified . . . .
    The draft legislation also specifies that it preempts state approval of any contrary exclusion and renders such approval “void to the extent that it excludes losses specified.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion
    Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com

    As of July 1, 2024, California Will Require Most Employers to Have a Written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and Training. Is Your Company Compliant?

    June 17, 2024 —
    The California legislature passed Senate Bill 553 (SB 553) in 2023. This bill requires most California employers to implement a written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and to train employees on the WVPP. At Newmeyer Dillion, we are dedicated to helping you navigate these requirements and maintain a safe, compliant work environment. Act Now: Two Weeks to Comply With SB 553's July 1st compliance deadline, employers have just two weeks to develop and implement a compliant Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP). The clock is ticking, and it is imperative to act swiftly to ensure compliance and protect your employees. What is SB 553? SB 553 is a legislative measure aimed at enhancing workplace safety by mandating specific actions from employers to prevent workplace violence. This bill recognizes the growing concern around workplace violence incidents and the need for proactive measures to maintain a safe workplace. The key components of SB 553 include:
    1. Establishment of a Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP): Employers are required to develop and implement a comprehensive written WVPP tailored to their specific workplace environment and risks.
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason L. Morris, Newmeyer Dillion and Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Morris may be contacted at jason.morris@ndlf.com Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    July 08, 2024 —
    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai has been recognized as a 2024 Northern California Super Lawyers honoree in the area of Construction Litigation. This is the eleventh consecutive year that he has been recognized by Super Lawyers. Super Lawyers, an annual listing of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and personal achievement, is limited to no more than five percent (5%) of lawyers in a state who are selected through a multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, independent research evaluation and peer reviews by practice area. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Data Is Critical for the Future of Construction

    April 19, 2022 —
    According to a recent study, real-time visibility and access to critical data and insights are vital for rapid construction decision-making. Notably, inaccurate and missing data cost the industry almost $2 trillion in 2020. Even more surprising, construction companies often don’t know if they’ve made or lost money until the job is complete or if they’re on schedule until they start falling behind. These findings portray an important reality for the industry: Construction needs to establish and optimize data strategies to ensure it has the visibility control, and transparency needed to improve efficiency and productivity on projects. Luckily, while historically slow to change, the construction industry has begun to adopt technologies that help firms improve efficiency and productivity on projects. With this technology, contractors can establish and optimize data strategies to ensure they have visibility, control and transparency. Embracing data is a game changer as the industry continues to expand. In fact, the report from Autodesk and FMI cited above found that the construction companies using data technologies and strategies saw fewer project delays, less rework and fewer change orders. Reprinted courtesy of Raghi Iyengar, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Breaking The Ice: A Policyholder's Guide to Insurance Coverage for Texas Winter Storm Uri Claims

    August 30, 2021 —
    The devastating extreme cold weather event in Texas often referred to as Winter Storm Uri, which lasted from February 14 to February 18, 2021, caused significant damages to homes and businesses in the region. Temperatures during the winter storm were the coldest on record since 1883, with some areas reaching as low as negative 6 degrees.4 Millions of Texans were impacted and many lives were lost. Insurance analysts predict that Uri will lead to the largest number of insurance claims in the state, totaling $20 billion in claimed losses.5 In fact, Uri is set to surpass Hurricane Harvey as the most devastating natural disaster in Texas, which resulted in $19 billion in insured losses. Further, Uri will be the largest insured loss from a United States winter storm in the industry’s history.6 The catastrophic Uri losses range from damage to property caused by the bursting of frozen pipes, collapsed roofs, weakened structures, loss of power, lack of public utility services, and the expenses incurred in the disruption of normal business operations. In addition, some commercial businesses were unable to operate due to bad weather conditions on the roads, while others were forced to halt operations due to power outages. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kelly A. Johnson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Johnson may be contacted at KJohnson@sdvlaw.com

    Important Insurance Alert for Out-of-State Contractors Assisting in Florida Recovery Efforts!

    November 01, 2022 —
    Significant portions of Florida suffered extensive damage from Hurricane Ian. Many out-of-state contractors have sent their workers to Florida to help with the cleanup and rebuilding process. SDV is sending out this important notice for all out-of-state contractors to contact their workers’ compensation brokers and insurers to ensure their out-of-state workers’ compensation policy will cover workers in Florida. The state of Florida does not recognize the “All States Endorsement” on workers’ compensation policies, and in some instances could potentially result in out-of-state contractors being without coverage in the State of Florida. As per the Florida Division of Workers’ Compensation: “Out of State Employers must notify their insurance carrier that they are working in Florida. If there is no insurance, the out-of-state employer is required to obtain a Florida Workers’ Compensation Insurance policy with a Florida approved insurance carrier which meets the requirements of Florida law and the Florida Insurance Code. This means that ‘Florida’ must be specifically listed in Section 3A of the policy (on the Information Page).” Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Stephanie A. Giagnorio, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com Ms. Giagnorio may be contacted at SGiagnorio@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Components of an Effective Provision

    December 02, 2015 —
    Tort law is aimed at providing compensation to the victims of negligence. Tort law encourages plaintiffs to cast a wide net, pursuing claims or suits against not only those whose fault seems manifestly primary, but also against defendants whose causal exposure is minimal, against those whose exposure is purely by operation of law. As discussed in the first installment of this series, "Maximizing Contractual Indemnity: Problems with Common Law," three common law principles – vicarious liability, joint and several liability, and common law indemnity – cause some parties to pay in excess of their actual degree of causal fault. Contractual indemnity can remedy that harsh result. Part Two: Components of an Effective Provision Properly composed, “broad form” contractual indemnity provisions permit an Indemnitee to shift the full range of financial consequences from tort exposure, including civil damages, defense fees, expert fees, and litigation expenses. Such contracts permit indemnity even where the underlying damage was incurred due to a degree of negligence or fault on the part of the Indemnitee. Such contracts can also allow an Indemnitee to shift to the Indemnitor the risk of loss for someone from whom the Indemnitor would otherwise be immune from suit (e.g., the Indemnitor’s employees). A well-written contract can even convert an entity which is an Indemnitor as to one party (e.g., a general contractor which has to indemnify a property owner) into an Indemnitee as to another party (e.g., a subcontractor) for the very same risk. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William Kennedy, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Kennedy may be contacted at kennedyw@whiteandwilliams.com

    New York Appellate Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

    November 30, 2020 —
    On October 9, 2020, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, decided an appeal from a trial court’s 2018 summary judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising out of asbestos-related bodily injury claims against plaintiffs Carrier Corporation (Carrier) and Elliott Company (Elliott). See Carrier Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 396 CA 18-02292, Mem. & Order (N.Y. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 4th Dep’t Oct. 9, 2020). The Fourth Department reversed the trial court’s ruling that, under New York’s “injury in fact trigger of coverage,” injury occurs from the first date of exposure to asbestos through death or the filing of suit as a matter of law. The parties agreed that, because the policy language at issue required personal injury to take place “during the policy period,” “the applicable test in determining what event constitutes personal injury sufficient to trigger coverage is injury-in-fact, ‘which rests on when the injury, sickness, disease or disability actually began.’” Id. at 3 (quoting Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Rapid-American Corp., 609 N.E.2d 506, 511 (N.Y. 1993)). The Fourth Department concluded that, in resolving the issue, the trial court erred by relying on inapposite decisions in other cases where: (1) the parties had stipulated or otherwise not disputed that first exposure triggered coverage[1]; or (2) the issue had not been resolved on summary judgment, but rather at trial based on expert medical evidence[2]. The Fourth Department further explained that, even if plaintiffs here had met their initial burden on summary judgment by submitting admissible evidence that asbestos-related injury actually begins upon first exposure, the defendant-insurer’s opposition – which included affidavits of medical experts contradicting that evidence and averring instead that “harm occurs only when a threshold level of asbestos fiber or particle burden is reached that overtakes the body’s defense mechanisms” – raised a triable issue of fact. Id. at 4. The Fourth Department also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the defendant-insurer was collaterally estopped on the “trigger” issue by a California appellate court’s decision in Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 690 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). The Fourth Department reasoned that the issues litigated in the two cases were not identical because, among other things, California and New York “apply different substantive law in determining when asbestos-related injury occurs.” Carrier, Mem. & Order at 4. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com