BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projects
    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


    Seattle Council May Take a New Look at Micro-Housing

    Last, but NOT Least: Why You Should Take a Closer Look at Your Next Indemnification Clause

    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

    Manhattan Home Prices Top Pre-Crisis Record on Luxury Deals

    General Contractor’s Ability to Supplement Subcontractor Per Subcontract

    Trump Administration Issues Proposed 'Waters of the U.S.' Rule

    7 Areas where Technology is Shifting the Construction Business

    Colorado Legislature Kills SB 20-138 – A Bill to Extend Colorado’s Statute of Repose

    OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard Is in Flux

    Misread of Other Insurance Clause Becomes Costly for Insurer

    Structural Engineer Found Liable for Defects that Rendered a Condominium Dangerously Unsafe

    Production of Pre-Denial Claim File Compelled

    How the Pandemic Pushed the Construction Industry Five Years Into the Future

    School Board Sues Multiple Firms over Site Excavation Problem

    OSHA Issues New Rules on Injury Record Keeping

    Landmark San Diego Hotel Settles Defects Suit for $6.4 Million

    Architectural Democracy – Interview with Pedro Aibéo

    What Happens When Dave Chappelle Buys Up Your Town

    Competitive Bidding Statute: When it Applies and When it Does Not

    Chambers USA 2022 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

    Filing Lien Foreclosure Lawsuit After Serving Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    How Do You Get to the Five Year Mark? Some Practical Advice

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

    Purse Tycoon Aims at Ultra-Rich With $85 Million Home

    Home Prices in U.S. Rose 0.3% in August From July, FHFA Says

    Venue for Suing Public Payment Bond

    Limitation on Coverage for Payment of Damages Creates Ambiguity

    Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

    Rancosky Adopts Terletsky: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Sets Standard for Statutory Bad Faith Claims

    Denver Parking Garage Roof Collapses Crushing Vehicles

    Solicitor General’s Views to Supreme Court on Two Circuit Court Rulings that Groundwater Can be Considered “Waters of the United States”

    Luxury Home Sales are on the Rise

    U.S. Tornadoes, Hail Cost Insurers $1 Billion in June

    Matthew Graham Named to Best Lawyers in America

    Can an Owner Preemptively Avoid a Mechanics Lien?

    Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Negligence Claim Against Flood Insurer

    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

    Real Estate Developer Convicted in $1.3 Billion Tax Case After Juror Removed

    Hydrogen Powers Its Way from Proof of Concept to Reality in Real Estate

    Largest Dam Removal Program in US History Reaches Milestone

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

    Procedural Matters Matter!

    U.S. Supreme Court Allows Climate Change Lawsuits to Proceed in State Court

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap - Undocumented Change Work

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

    Circumstances In Which Design Professional Has Construction Lien Rights

    Michigan Supreme Court Finds Faulty Subcontractor Work That Damages Insured’s Work Product May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under CGL Policy

    The Insurance Coverage Debate on Construction Defects Continues

    Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete
    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

    Late Notice Bars Insured's Claim for Loss Caused by Hurricane

    October 24, 2022 —
    The court found that the failure to provide prompt notice of damage caused by Hurricane Irma barred plaintiff's claim for coverage. Garcia v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149312 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2022). On September 10, 2017, plaintiff's property allegedly suffered damage due to Hurricane Irma. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff observed a water stain on the ceiling of the bedroom which was painted over. She did not take any pictures of the water stain before repainting. Plaintiff reported to her experts that she observed other water stains in various areas in 2017, 2018 and 2019, and that she painted over them each time. She again observed water stains in several rooms in 2020, at which time she became aware of the magnitude of the problem and went to an attorney. Plaintiff did not report her claim until May 27, 2020. 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

    Once Again: Contract Terms Matter

    May 11, 2020 —
    I know, you’ve heard this over and over again here at Construction Law Musings: courts in Virginia will interpret a contract strictly and in a manner that gives meaning to its unambiguous terms. A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court, White Oak Power Constructors v. Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, reinforces this point. The basic facts of the case relevant to this discussion and the Court’s opinion are these. Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) hired White Oak Power Constructors (White Oak) to build a natural gas power plant. The contract between ODEC and White Oak provided for liquidated damages for delay and also contained a risk of loss provision making ODEC responsible for certain losses or damages due to property damage at the plant. I highly recommend that you read the facts of the case in full to get the details of the terms of these clauses. Needless to say (or this case wouldn’t be the subject of a construction law blog), the project ran past completion date and liquidated damages were assessed to the tune of more than $50,000,000.00. The delay was alleged to have been caused in substantial part by property damage due to weather, fire, and ice among other causes. 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

    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

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

    March 19, 2024 —
    Sarah P. Long has joined Payne & Fears LLP as a Partner in the firm’s Insurance Coverage and Litigation Group. Sarah has represented clients in all aspects of insurance coverage and litigation and also focus on construction defect claims and litigation. Before joining Payne & Fears, Sarah was a partner at Koeller, Nebeker, Carlson, Haluck, LLP, where she represented many of the nation’s builders in construction defect actions and bad faith insurance coverage disputes for 17 years. Known for her dependability, efficiency, and creative problem-solving, Sarah always strives to secure the best results for her clients in the most efficient manner. “We are excited to welcome Sarah to P&F as we continue to expand and add depth to our Insurance Litigation Group. I have known Sarah in a professional and personal capacity for more than 16 years. She is well respected by clients and peers in the legal profession. She is a bright, efficient, and innovative attorney and a wonderful person,” said Sarah Odia, the group’s co-chair. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

    NY Pay-to-Play Charges Dropped Against LPCiminelli Executive As Another Pleads Guilty

    June 06, 2018 —
    The former president of New York contractor LPCiminelli—the firm that has been at the center of an alleged pay-to-play scheme playing out since 2016 when he and two other executives were indicted—got a reprieve as federal prosecutors said they were dropping all charges against him, including wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and making false statements to federal agents, according to a June 1 court filing. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR and Debra K. Rubin, ENR Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

    May 16, 2018 —
    In All Green Electric v. Security National Ins. Co. (No. B279456, filed 3/19/18, ord. pub. 4/17/18), a California appeals court ruled that the impaired property exclusion barred coverage for a claim based on the insured’s failure to tighten a loose bolt that resulted in stray magnetic fields interfering with operation of an MRI machine and allegedly threatening the health of personnel. All Green was an electrical contractor hired to perform wiring for an MRI unit installation. Stray magnetic fields interfered with the unit’s operation. Efforts to remediate the problem included installing shielding and ultimately relocating the unit to another room. An expert finally determined that a bolt left loose by All Green was causing the magnetic field, which disappeared when the bolt was properly tightened. The facility sought damages for negligence, including costs for unnecessary modifications and repairs, payments to outside sources for substitute mammography testing, operational costs and expenses, damage to reputation, lost profits, and the loss of an HMO contract. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Zoning Hearing Notice Addressed by Georgia Appeals Court

    April 20, 2017 —
    The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed the requisite notice of zoning proceedings that ultimately requested in a zoning decision. The key question was whether, after a properly noticed planning meeting, additional notice was required before the board’s formal vote that occurred three months later. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Colorado Abandons the “Completed and Accepted Rule” in Favor of the “Foreseeability Rule” in Determining a Contractor’s Duty to a Third Party After Work Has Been Completed

    January 17, 2013 —
    In a recent case, the Colorado Court of Appeals found that a contractor had a duty to a third party to warn it of a dangerous condition, even after the contractor had completed its work and the owner had accepted the contractor’s work.  Collard v. Vista Paving Corp., -- P.3d --, 2012 WL 5871446 (Colo. App. 2012).  While not an earth shattering or entirely new concept, the decision rendered in Collard directly accepted the foreseeability rule at the expense of the completed and accepted rule.  Id.
     
    In Collard, the City of Grand Junction (“the City”) hired Vista Paving Corp. (“Vista”) to construct two road medians according to the City’s plans and designs.  On July 9, 2007, Vista began work on the medians.  According to its contract with the City, Vista was responsible for traffic control during construction of the medians.  On July 19, 2007, Vista completed its construction of both medians.  On that date, the City’s project inspector conducted his final inspection of Vista’s work.  The City’s inspector then told Vista that its work had been completed and that Vista was authorized to leave the site.  Vista requested permission to remove the traffic control devices to which the City’s inspector agreed.  Vista removed all of its traffic control devices.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
    Mr. Iandiorio can be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com