BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnesses
    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


    Hydrogen—A Key Element in the EU’s Green Planning

    Former Mayor Arrested for Violating Stop Work Order

    Irvine Partner Cinnamon J. Carr and Associate Brittney H. Aquino Prevail on Summary Judgment

    Colorado Adopts Twombly-Iqbal “Plausibility” Standard

    Disappointment on an Olympian Scale After Rio 2016 Summer Games

    Approaching Design-Build Projects to Avoid (or Win) Disputes

    Legislation Update: S-865 Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey Passed by Both Houses-Awaiting Governor’s Signature

    California Supreme Court Protects California Policyholders for Intentional Acts of Employees

    Housing Starts Fall as U.S. Single-Family Projects Decline

    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

    Edgewater Plans to Sue Over Pollution During Veterans Field Rehab

    Constructive Suspension (Suspension Outside of an Express Order)

    Grad Student Sues UC Santa Cruz over Mold in Residence

    Pre-Covid Construction Contracts Unworkable as Costs Surge, Webuild Says

    Iowa Court Holds Defective Work Performed by Insured's Subcontractor Constitutes an "Occurrence"

    New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements

    Baltimore Bridge Collapse Occurred After Ship Lost Power Multiple Times

    Contractors Set to Implement Air Quality Upgrades for Healthier Buildings

    Dorian Lashes East Canada, Then Weakens Heading Out to Sea

    Standard of Care

    Denial of Coverage for Bulge in Wall Upheld

    Presenting a “Total Time” Delay Claim Is Not Sufficient

    Material Prices Climb…And Climb…Are You Considering A Material Escalation Provision?

    Defense Victory in Breach of Fiduciary Action

    Tall and Sustainable Is Not an Easy Fix

    Waiving Workers’ Compensation Immunity for Indemnity: Demystifying a Common and Scary-Looking Contract Term

    The Problem With Building a New City From Scratch

    New Iowa Law Revises Construction Defects Statute of Repose

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2023 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Policyholder Can “Stack” the Limits of Each Primary Policy After Asbestos Claim

    Hawaii State Senate Requires CGL Carriers to Submit Premium Information To State Legislature

    Prefabrication Contract Considerations

    Spain Risks €10.6 Billion Flood Damage Bill, Sanchez Says

    Colorado Rejects Bill to Shorten Statute of Repose

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2024 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

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

    Navigating Abandonment of a Construction Project

    Actual Cost Value Includes Depreciation of Repair Labor Costs

    When is Forum Selection in a Construction Contract Enforceable?

    New OSHA Fall Rules to Start Early in Minnesota

    Did You Get a Notice of Mechanic’s Lien after Project Completion? Don’t Panic!

    Maryland Legislation Prohibits Condominium Developers from Shortening Statute of Limitations to Defeat Unit Owner Construction Defect Claims

    Arizona Court of Appeals Upholds Judgment on behalf of Homeowners against Del Webb Communities for Homes Riddled with Construction Defects

    Human Eye Resolution Virtual Reality for AEC

    What is the Effect of an Untimely Challenge to the Timeliness of a Trustee’s Sale?

    Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion

    Navigating Casualty Challenges and Opportunities

    Bel Air Mansion Construction Draws Community Backlash

    User Interface With a Building – Interview with Esa Halmetoja of Senate Properties

    Subcontractor Sued for Alleged Defective Work
    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

    Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    July 21, 2018 —
    In Part I of this article, published in late April, we discussed the performance risk and time risk involved with construction and design contracts, and in Part II, we will cover cost risk and political risk. Cost Risk School budgets are limited for many reasons, and the construction budget is no exception. As a result, contracts should guard against unwarranted cost increases and claims. In the absence of a written change order signed by the appropriate officer, the contract should absolutely prohibit additional compensation for changes in the work. It should forbid claims for all events except those within the school authority’s sole control. Even for permitted claims, the contractor must provide written notice so that the authority might alleviate the problem and control its costs. To encourage the contractor to limit costs and claims, the contract could include a shared-savings clause, which grants an incentive payment for completion within the budget. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Consider Arbitration Provision in Homebuilder’s Warranty and Purchase-and-Sale Agreement

    November 18, 2024 —
    When you enter into a contract with a homebuilder, particularly a tract homebuilder, please consider two things when it comes to dispute resolution: (1) your purchase-and-sale agreement likely contains an arbitration provision, and (2) your limited warranty agreement you get in connection with closing likely also reinforces the arbitration provision, especially with warranty claims governed by the limited warranty agreement. This dispute resolution is important because it means the homebuilder wants disputes resolved through the arbitration process and NOT through the litigation process (where the nature of disputes and allegations are public). Look, there are pros and cons with arbitration, no different than litigation. Arbitrating a dispute is not necessarily a bad thing, and with certain disputes, ideal. There is no right to appeal in arbitration, but the dispute should resolve itself quicker than litigation, and you’ll have more control over the decision maker, i.e., the arbitrator. 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

    Texas contractual liability exclusion

    May 18, 2011 —

    In Ewing Construction Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., No. C-10-256 (S.D. Tex. April 28, 2011), insured Ewing was the general contractor for an athletic facility constructed for a school district. The school district sued Ewing alleging defective construction of the project. The underlying complaint included contract and negligence causes of action, and sought damages for the repair of the damages and loss of the use of the project. The complaint did not allege damage to any property other than the project itself. Ewing tendered its defense to its CGL insurer Amerisure. Amerisure denied a defense and Ewing filed suit against Amerisure. The federal district trial court entered summary judgment for Amerisure. Applying Texas law, the court held that all of the damages fell within the “contractual liability” exclusion precluding any duty to defend or indemnify.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ambiguity in Insurance Policy will be Interpreted in Favor of Insurance Coverage

    July 19, 2017 —
    An ambiguity in an insurance policy–after reading and interpreting the policy as a whole–will be construed against an insurer. This means an ambiguity will be construed in favor of insurance coverage (for the benefit of the insured) as opposed to against insurance coverage. This does not mean that every insurance policy contains an ambiguity. This also does not mean a court will interpret plain and ordinary words contrary to their conventional meaning or definition. But, as we all know, insurance policies are not the easiest of documents to decipher and ambiguities do exist relating to a particular issue or circumstance to the benefit of an insured. An insured that is dealing with specific insurance coverage issues should make sure they are working with counsel that looks to maximize insurance coverage, even if that means exploring ambiguities that will benefit an insured based on a particular issue or circumstance. An example of an ambiguity in an insurance policy relating to a particular issue that benefitted an insured can be found in the Florida Supreme Court decision of Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Macedo, 42 Fla. L. Weekly S731a (Fla. 2017). This case involved an automobile accident and the interpretation of an automobile liability policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

    Subcontract Should Flow Down Delay Caused by Subcontractors

    December 21, 2020 —
    A general contractor’s subcontract with its subcontractor should include a provision that entitles it to flow down liquidated damages assessed by the owner stemming from delays caused by the subcontractor. Such a provision does not mean the general contractor does not have to prove delays caused by the subcontractor or can arbitrarily allocate the amount or days it claims the subcontractor is liable. The general contractor still will need to reasonably establish the delays the subcontractor caused the critical path of the schedule, i.e., delayed the job. In addition to the right to flow down liquidated damages, the subcontract should also entitle the general contractor to recover its actual extended general conditions caused by the subcontractor’s delays (regardless of whether the owner assesses liquidated damages). The objective is that if the subcontractor delays the job, the subcontractor is liable for liquidated damages the general contractor is liable to the owner for in addition to the general contractor’s own delay damages. This is an important subcontractual provision so that the risk of delay caused by subcontractors is clearly flowed down to them in the subcontract. In a 1987 case, Hall Construction Co., Inc. v. Beynon, 507 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), the subcontract at-issue contained language that stated, “The parties hereto agree that a supplier who delays performance beyond the time agreed upon in this Purchase Order shall have caused [general contractor] liquidated damages in the amount required of [general contractor] by their contract per day for each day such delay continues which sum the supplier hereby agrees to pay.” 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

    Affirmed: Insureds Bear the Burden of Allocating Covered Versus Uncovered Losses

    September 28, 2017 —
    The Second Circuit recently affirmed a district court decision that an insured bears the burden of establishing what portion of a jury verdict constitutes covered damages1. The case arose out of claims for property damage resulting from construction defects in a homebuilding project. The homeowners fired the construction manager, J. Barrows, Inc. (“JBI”), who then sued the homeowners in state court for unpaid fees (the “Underlying Action”). The homeowners counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract and negligence. JBI’s commercial general liability insurer, Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company (“Harleysville”), agreed to defend JBI under a reservation of rights. Reprinted courtesy of C. Lily Schurra, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Schurra may be contacted at cls@sdvlaw.com Ms. Byrd may be contacted at kab@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Cuba: Construction Boom Potential for U.S. Construction Companies and Equipment Manufacturers?

    June 30, 2016 —
    On July 20, 2015, diplomatic relations were officially restored between the U.S. and Cuba. Since that date, a number of significant political events have taken place. First, the U.S. reopened its embassy in Cuba on August 14, 2015. Next, on January 26, 2016, offices of the U.S. Departments of the Treasury and Commerce announced new amendments to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations and Export Administration Regulations. These amendments removed “existing restrictions on payment and financing terms for authorized exports and reexports to Cuba of items other than agricultural items or commodities,” and established “a case-by-case licensing policy for exports and reexports of items to meet the needs of the Cuban people, including those made to Cuban state-owned enterprises.”[1] Additionally, these amendments “further facilitate travel to Cuba for authorized purposes by allowing blocked space, code-sharing, and leasing arrangements with Cuban airlines, authorizing additional travel-related and other transactions directly incident to the temporary sojourn of aircraft and vessels, and authorizing additional transactions related to professional meetings and other events, disaster preparedness and response projects, and information and informational materials, including transactions incident to professional media or artist productions in Cuba.”[2] Finally, on March 21, 2016, President Barack Obama was the first sitting U.S. President to visit Cuba since the 1959 revolution, in which Fidel Castro overthrew Fulgencio Batista. This revolution ultimately led to the U.S. severing diplomatic relations in 1961 and President John F. Kennedy imposing a trade embargo between the U.S. and Cuba, which remains in effect today. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sanjo Shatley, Esq., Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Shatley may be contacted at sanjo.shatley@csklegal.com

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa Rolle and Christopher Acosta Win Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

    February 20, 2023 —
    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa Rolle and Christopher Acosta obtained summary judgment in favor of Defendant, the owner of a premises located in Bronx, New York, in a personal injury case brought before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. The Plaintiff alleged that while leaving the Defendant’s premises, she unexpectedly fell. It is undisputed that the Plaintiff does not know why she fell or identify any defect that may have caused her fall. The Defendant’s witness testified that the route taken by the Plaintiff was free of any defect prior to and on the date of the incident. The witness further testified that the site was also subject to routine inspection leading up to the incident, in which no tripping hazards were observed. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and Christopher D. Acosta, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Mr. Acosta may be contacted at cacosta@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of