BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering 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


    Herman Russell's Big Hustle

    No Conflict in Successive Representation of a Closely-Held Company and Its Insiders Where Insiders Already Possess Company’s Confidential Information

    Florida Lawmakers Fail to Reach Agreement on Condominium Safety Bill

    Rights Afforded to Employees and Employers During Strikes

    Business Interruption, Food Spoilage Claims Resulting from Off Premise Power Failure Denied

    Ireland Said to Plan Home Loans Limits to Prevent Bubble

    What are the Potential Damages when a House is a Lemon?

    California Court of Appeals Says, “We Like Eich(leay)!”

    U.K. to Set Out Plan for Fire-Risk Apartment Cladding Crisis

    Avoiding 'E-trouble' in Construction Litigation

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/30/24) – Life Science Construction to Increase, Overall Homeownership Is Majority Female, and Senators Urge Fed Chair to Lower Interest Rates

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

    Elevators Take Sustainable Smart Cities to the Next Level

    Would You Trade a Parking Spot for an Extra Bedroom?

    Lien Law Change in Idaho

    Insurer Must Defend Construction Defect Claims

    U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution

    $31.5M Settlement Reached in Contract Dispute between Judlau and the Illinois Tollway

    The Small Stuff: Small Claims Court and Limited Civil Court Jurisdictional Limits

    Location, Location, Location—Even in Construction Liens

    Design Professional Asserting Copyright Infringement And Contributory Copyright Infringement

    Buildings Don't Have To Be Bird-Killers

    Four Common Construction Contracts

    Firm Announces Remediation of Defective Drywall

    Not to Miss at This Year’s Archtober Festival

    CSLB “Fast Facts” for Online Home Improvement Marketplaces

    Illinois Court Assesses Factual Nature of Term “Reside” in Determining Duty to Defend

    The Risks and Rewards of Sustainable Building Design

    Home Prices Up, Inventory Down

    New FAR Rule Mandates the Use of PLAs on Large Construction Projects

    Lack of Workers Holding Back Building

    A Court-Side Seat – Case Law Update (February 2022)

    Nevada Legislature Burns Insurers' Rights to Offer Eroding Limits

    Florida extends the Distressed Condominium Relief Act

    In Louisiana, Native Americans Struggle to Recover From Ida

    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

    NYC Condo Skyscraper's Builder Wins a Round -- With a Catch

    California’s Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements: Public Works and AB 3018, What You Need to Know

    Where Mechanic’s Liens and Contracts Collide

    Residential Contractors, Be Sure to Have these Clauses in Your Contracts

    Wes Payne Receives Defense Attorney of the Year Award

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Known Loss Doctrine & Interpretation of “Occurrence”

    Congratulations to Karen Baytosh and August Hotchkin on Their Recognition as 2021 Nevada Legal Elites!

    Commercial Construction Heating Up

    Defenses Raised Three-Years Too Late Estop Insurer’s Coverage Denial

    Construction Defects #10 On DBJ’s Top News Stories of 2015

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

    Implementation of CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards Delayed

    Design Immunity Does Not Shield Public Entity From Claim That it Failed to Warn of a Dangerous Condition
    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. Drawing 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

    Pre-Suit Settlement Offers and Construction Lien Actions

    July 21, 2018 —
    It is unfortunate, but in certain matters, a construction lien foreclosure action is not actually driven by the principal amount in dispute. Oh no. Rather, it is driven by attorney’s fees. That’s right. Attorney’s fees. This is true even though Florida applies the significant issues test to determine the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees. However, oftentimes the prospect of attorney’s fees is enough for parties to fear that exposure. There is a 1985 Florida Supreme Court case that I like to cite if applicable, C.U. Associates, Inc. v. R.B. Grove, Inc., 472 So.2d 1177, 1179 (Fla. 1985), that finds, “in order to be a prevailing party entitled to the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29 [a construction lien claim], a litigant must have recovered an amount exceeding that which was earlier offered in settlement of the claim.” Accord Sullivan v. Galske, 917 So.2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (explaining that although contractor is receiving a judgment in his favor, he may not be the prevailing party if the homeowner offered to settle prior to the lawsuit for an amount equal to or greater than the award in the judgment). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    White and Williams Defeats Policyholder’s Attempt to Invalidate Asbestos Exclusions

    January 28, 2014 —
    White and Williams attorneys scored a significant victory for the insurance industry on January 15, 2014, when a federal jury of four men and four women rejected a policyholder’s novel efforts to invalidate asbestos exclusions contained in insurance policies issued between February 1, 1979 and August 1, 1985. In General Refractories Co. v. First State Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 04-CV-3509 (E.D. Pa.), General Refractories Company contended that asbestos exclusions in insurance policies issued by various insurance companies in the late 1970s and 1980s had not been submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance for approval prior to use and, therefore, were unenforceable. Holding a failure to obtain approval, by itself, would not be sufficient to render the exclusions unenforceable, the Honorable Edmund Ludwig sent the matter to trial to determine whether the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner implemented a policy that was uniformly executed by the Insurance Department to disapprove all asbestos exclusions between February 1, 1979 and August 1, 1985, such that the exclusions violated a “dominant public policy.”

    Reprinted courtesy of Gregory LoCasale, White and Williams LLP

    and Patricia Santelle , White and Williams LLP

    Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com and Mr. LoCasale may be contacted at locasaleg@whiteandwilliams.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    November 21, 2017 —
    Originally published by CDJ on April 20, 2017 Earlier, we reported on a California Court of Appeals decision – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc. – which held for the first time that a second-place bidder on a public works contract could sue a winning bidder who failed to pay its workers prevailing wages, under the business tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Fast forward nearly two years, several amicus briefs, and “one doghouse”* later and the California Supreme Court has . . . reversed. The Roy Allan Slurry Seal Case To catch you up, or rather, refresh your recollection . . . Between 2009 and 2012, American Asphalt South, Inc. was awarded 23 public works contracts totaling more than $14.6 million throughout Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. Two of the losing bidders on those projects – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. and Doug Martin Contracting, Inc. – sued American in each of these counties for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage as well as under the Unfair Practices Act (“UPA”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17000 et seq.) and the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200). 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

    Are Construction Defect Claims Covered Under CGL Policies?

    January 27, 2014 —
    Courts have ruled differently as to whether a construction defect is or is not an “occurrence,” according to the publication Business Insurance. Four states—Colorado, Arkansas, Hawaii and South Carolina—have sought to remove ambiguity by passing statutes that define construction defect claims as occurrences. Colorado, the first state to create such a statue, passed H. B. 10-1394 in May 2010. The state legislature passed the statute “because of the complex and lengthy endorsements and exclusions facing construction professionals, according to the bill” reported Business Insurance. The article stated that “incongruous court decisions over whether construction defect claims are covered under CGL policies continue to drive uncertainty in coverage and increase litigation costs.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Landowners Try to Choke Off Casino's Water With 19th-Century Lawsuit

    December 17, 2015 —
    California’s latest water war is being waged at the edge of wine country against an Indian tribe planning a massive casino expansion as a group of landowners tries to stop them with a lawsuit from 1897. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians is spending $170 million to build out its resort, featuring a 12-story tower on a bucolic landscape where only the mountains are higher. The tribe has also snapped up 1,400 more acres to house cramped residents of its reservation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Edvard Pettersson, Bloomberg

    Carillion Fallout Affects Major Hospital Project in Liverpool

    October 30, 2018 —
    Managers of a 90%-complete, 646-bed hospital in Liverpool will take charge of the project after unravelling a public-private partnership with the contractor Carillion Plc, which collapsed ignominiously in January (ENR 1/22 p. 12). Following cancellation of the contractor’s other large U.K. hospital P3, near Birmingham, project lenders face large losses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Peter Reina, ENR
    Mr. Reina may be contacted at reina@btinternet.com

    Conflict of Interest Accusations may Spark Lawsuit Against City and City Manager

    February 07, 2014 —
    Casper, Wyoming Councilman Craig Hedquist—who is also owner of Hedquist Construction—has been “accused of violating state and local conflict-of-interest laws,” according to the Star-Tribune. In response, Hedquist “is threatening a lawsuit against City Manager John Patterson, the city of Casper and ‘possibly others,’ according to a letter obtained by the Star-Tribune.” The letter, which was sent to City Attorney William Luben by Hedquist attorney John Robinson, “demands the city preserve, from Aug. 1, 2012, on, all records of communication and consultation with attorneys and investigators, along with minutes, notes, recordings, executive sessions and digital data regarding Hedquist and Hedquist Construction.” City Manager John Patterson told the Star-Tribune that “he was unaware of the letter and didn't know what the lawsuit might be about.” Hedquist maintains that there was never a conflict of interest: “The general and expected practice for the Casper City Council members is to not vote on matters in which a council member may have a personal interest and record this recusal in the public record,” Hedquist said, as reported by the Star-Tribune. “I have done this on all contract matters regarding Hedquist Construction.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hurricane Claim Cannot Survive Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    May 15, 2023 —
    The court upheld the insurer's denial of coverage for hurricane damage caused by storm surge. Heritage Motorcoach Resort & Marina Condominium Association, Inc v. Axis Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58931 (S.D. Ala. April 4, 2023). Heritage operated a resort with a marina, dock and clubhouse. Hurricane Sally caused damage to the property. Heritage submitted a claim to its insurer, Axis. Axis investigated the claim. One investigator reported that the marina structures sustained damage caused by storm tide forces, wave action and debris impact. He opined that the marina structures did not sustain wind damage. When deposed, he testified that there was a combination of vessels and wave action causing damage to the marina. A second investigator found that the storm drove boats and other debris into the marina area causing much of the damage. 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