BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultant
    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


    Detect and Prevent Construction Fraud

    Minneapolis Condo Shortage Blamed on Construction Defect Law

    Bid Bonds: The First Preventative Measure for Your Project

    HHMR Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers

    What Makes a Great Lawyer?

    MTA Implements Revised Contractors Debarment Regulations

    Boilerplate Contract Language on Permits could cause Problems for Contractors

    With Historic Removal of Four Dams, Klamath River Flows Again Unhindered

    Don’t Put Yourself In The Position Of Defending Against An Accord And Satisfaction Defense

    Design-Assist Collaboration/Follow-up Post

    Supreme Court Set to Alter Law on Key Project, Workforce Issues

    In Contracts, One Word Makes All the Difference

    Ambiguity in Pennsylvania’s Statute of Repose Finally Cleared up by Superior Court

    Court Finds Matching of Damaged Materials is Required by Policy

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    Affordable Housing should not be Filled with Defects

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

    Construction Defects in Roof May Close School

    Thinking About a Daubert Motion to Challenge an Expert Opinion?

    The Heat Is On

    Three Recent Cases Strike Down Liquidated Damages Clauses In Settlement Agreements…A Trend Or An Aberration?

    “Other Insurance” and Indemnity Provisions Determine Which Insurer Must Cover

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

    How to Get Your Bedroom Into the Met Museum

    Difference Between a Novation And A Modification to a Contract

    Reminder About the Upcoming Mechanic’s Lien Form Change

    A Few Things You Might Consider Doing Instead of Binging on Netflix

    Oregon agreement to procure insurance, anti-indemnity statute, and self-insured retention

    Indiana Appellate Court Allows Third-Party Spoliation Claim to Proceed

    Pa. Contractor Pleads No Contest to Prevailing-Wage Charges, Pays Workers $20.7M

    Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage

    No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 4: Coverage for Supply Chain Related Losses

    BWB&O’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted in a Premises Liability Matter

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Inverse Condemnation Action

    Defining Catastrophic Injury Claims

    Depreciation of Labor in Calculating Actual Cash Value Against Public Policy

    Be Sure to Bring Up Any Mechanic’s Lien Defenses Early and Often

    The Fair Share Act Impacts the Strategic Planning of a Jury Trial

    NY Construction Safety Firm Falsely Certified Workers, Says Manhattan DA

    Angela Cooner Appointed Vice-Chair of Arizona’s Inaugural Board of Legal Specialization Construction Defect Law Advisory Commission

    Fatal Crane Collapse in Seattle Prompts Questions About Disassembly Procedures

    Lewis Brisbois Launches New Practice Focusing on Supply Chain Issues

    Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    Do Not Forfeit Coverage Under Your Property Insurance Policy

    Construction Contractor “Mean Tweets” Edition

    Rejection’s a Bear- Particularly in Construction

    A Word to the Wise: The AIA Revised Contract Documents Could Lead to New and Unanticipated Risks - Part II

    Warranty Reform Legislation for Condominiums – Unfair Practices used by Developers and Builders to avoid Warranty Responsibility for Construction Defects in Newly Constructed Condominiums

    Curtain Wall Suppliers Claim Rival Duplicated Unique System
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

    December 02, 2019 —
    The proper venue for a Miller Act payment bond claim is “in the United States District Court for any district in which the contract was to be performed and executed, regardless of the amount in controversy.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(3)(B). Well, there are a number of federal construction projects that take place outside of the United States. For these projects, where is the correct venue to sue a Miller Act payment bond if there is no US District Court where the project is located? A recent opinion out of the Southern District of Florida answers this question. In U.S. ex. rel. Salt Energy, LLC v. Lexon Ins. Co., 2019 WL 3842290 (S.D.Fla. 2019), a prime contractor was hired by the government to design and construct a solar power system for the US Embassy’s parking garage in Burkina Faso. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform a portion of its scope of work. The subcontractor remained unpaid in excess of $500,000 and instituted a Miller Act payment bond claim against the payment bond surety in the Southern District of Florida, Miami division. The surety moved to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia arguing that the Southern District of Florida was an improper venue. The court agreed and transferred venue. Why? 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

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    July 06, 2011 —

    The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a ruling in June on the case of Nevins v. Toll in which they reversed an earlier decision and remanded the case to a lower court for retrial. At issue in the case was the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, J. Anthony Dowling. In depositions, Mr. Dowling said that his estimates for repair were based on a “gut feeling.” Dowling said he had “very little” experience in cost estimates for single-family homes. The defendants sought to bar Dowling’s testimony which was granted by the judge. Without an expert, Ms. Nevin’s case was dismissed.

    Describing Dowling’s report as “far from a model of how an expert’s opinion in a construction case should be presented,” the court noted that Dowling is not a professional expert witness. However, the court did note that Dowling is a professional cost estimator. Despite Mr. Dowling using his “gut feeling” to construct his estimate, the New Jersey Supreme Court felt that whether his estimate is convincing is “a question for the jury.”

    Read the court’s opinion…

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

    First Circuit Finds No Coverage For Subcontracted Faulty Work

    December 17, 2024 —
    After almost two years' deliberation, the First Circuit last week issued its long-awaited decision in Admiral Ins. Co. v. Tocci Bldg. Corp.[1]: affirming on other grounds, and leaving in place a district court decision that found subcontracted faulty work was not an "occurrence" and did not lead to covered “property damage” under Massachusetts law. The decision leaves Massachusetts among a number of states where general contractors should not expect coverage from their commercial general liability (CGL) insurers for damage falling within the contractor’s scope of work. Since the "scope of work" – where general contractors are involved – often encompasses an entire project, contractors who want coverage in Massachusetts should take care to make alternative arrangements: transferring risk to subcontractors through indemnity provisions and additional-insured endorsements, or relying on other policy forms where available. Reprinted courtesy of Eric Hermanson, White and Williams LLP and Austin Moody, White and Williams LLP Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Up in Smoke - 5th Circuit Finds No Coverage for Hydrochloric Acid Spill Based on Pollution Exclusion

    October 19, 2020 —
    The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an insurer was not obligated to pay damages associated with a hydrochloric acid spill based on a pollution exclusion in the policy. In Burroughs Diesel, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America,1 a trucking company sued its property insurer, Travelers Indemnity Company of America (“Travelers”) when it refused to pay a claim for a storage tank leak which resulted in over 5,000 gallons of hydrochloric acid entering the property and causing significant damage to buildings, vehicles, tools, and equipment. The acid was initially dispensed in liquid form, but quickly became a cloud that engulfed the property. Travelers denied coverage for the claim based on the pollution exclusion because “acids” fell within the policy’s definition of “pollutants.” The trucking company sued Travelers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing for refusing to pay the claim. The trucking company argued that coverage was warranted because there is an exception to the pollution exclusion if “the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape is itself caused by any of the ‘specified causes of loss,’” and the hydrochloric acid cloud was a form of “smoke,” which is a specified cause of loss covered by the policy. The District Court entered summary judgment in favor of Travelers, finding that the trucking company failed to demonstrate that an exception to the pollution exclusion applied. The trucking company appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com Mr. Jordan may be contacted at dgj@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Baltimore Project Pushes To Meet Federal Deadline

    July 22, 2019 —
    Two giant anaerobic digesters shaped like Faberge eggs have for years served as landmarks for commuters traveling on Interstate-695 east of downtown Baltimore. And cranes, recently removed, signaled the location of one of the latest projects in a years-long, $1.6-billion construction program to upgrade the 100-year-old Back River Wastewater Treatment Plant. “You probably won’t see a collection of this many ‘sticks’ anywhere else in the city,” Shane Lippert noted back in October. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin Rice, ENR
    Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricej@enr.com

    Managing Infrastructure Projects with Infrakit – Interview with Teemu Kivimäki

    June 09, 2016 —
    Finland has been in the vanguard in adopting building information modeling (BIM) for infrastructure construction. In this interview I discuss with Teemu Kivimäki, CEO of DCS Finland, how Infrakit helps in projects that use BIM. Can you say a few words about the background of your company and how Infrakit came about? The background of DCS Finland (short for Digital Construction Solutions Finland) is in research done in University of Oulu where I worked as a research scientist on construction automation from 2007 to 2010. We were doing research with big infrastructure construction companies, exploring ways to improve worksite management and data flow. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aarni@aepartners.fi

    Helsinki is Building a Digital Twin of the City

    May 20, 2019 —
    The capital of Finland first tested city modeling as long back as 1987. But the most recent model of the Kalasatama district demonstrates the new state-of-the-art possibilities of this technology: creation of a highly accurate digital twin of the city. My hosts, Helsinki’s city modeling specialists Jarmo Suomisto and Enni Airaksinen, showed me their latest projects. One of them offered a glimpse of history through a lens of the future. With 3D glasses on, I was able to experience the unrealized city plan made by Eliel Saarinen, the father of the world-renowned architect Eero Saarinen. The virtual model in question was a digitized version of a huge physical model from 1915. Being able to stroll the streets and fly over the roofs of the imagined city really made me understand how awesome the original design was. I had seen a scale model of this same plan while it was laid in the foyer of the Museum of Finnish Architecture many years ago, but this experience was quite different. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Failure to Comply with Sprinkler Endorsement Bars Coverage for Fire Damage

    July 31, 2013 —
    Despite its application stating otherwise, the insured's failure to install a sprinkler system in its building barred coverage for extensive damage caused by fire.American Way Cellular, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 425 (Cal. Ct. App. May 30, 2013). American Way contacted a broker, A&J, regarding liability and property coverage. A&J sent American Way an application for a policy with Travelers. The application indicated American Way had a sprinkler system and fire detectors in its building. Travelers issued a policy with a Protective Safeguards Endorsement For Sprinkler Locations and Restaurants. The endorsement stated that as a condition of the insurance, the insured was required to maintain a sprinkler system. An exclusions section said the insurer would not pay for loss caused by fire if there was no sprinkler system. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com