BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic 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


    You Don’t Have To Be a Consumer to Assert a FDUTPA Claim

    Contractor Sues Yelp Reviewer for Defamation

    California Supreme Court Endorses City Authority to Adopt Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

    Alabama Court Determines No Coverage For Insured's Faulty Workmanship

    Five "Boilerplate" Terms to Negotiate in Your Next Subcontract

    Coloradoans Deserve More Than Hyperbole and Rhetoric from Plaintiffs’ Attorneys; We Deserve Attainable Housing

    A Classic Blunder: Practical Advice for Avoiding Two-Front Wars

    3D Printing: A New Era in Concrete Construction

    Recent Supreme Court Decision Could Have Substantial Impact on Builders

    Property Damage to Non-Defective Work Is Covered

    Tesla Finishes First Solar Roofs—Including Elon's House

    Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

    Manhattan Developer Wants Claims Dismissed in Breach of Contract Suit

    Home-Sales Fall in 2014 Has U.S. Waiting for 2015: Economy

    Construction Group Seeks Defense Coverage for Hard Rock Stadium Claims

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Insurer Must Defend Oil Company Against Entire Lawsuit

    2018 Super Bowl US. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis

    Athletic Trainers Help Workers Get Back to the Jobsite and Stay Healthy After Injury

    Connecticut Grapples With Failing Concrete Foundations

    Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear

    What if the "Your Work" Exclusion is Inapplicable? ISO Classification and Construction Defect Claims.

    Coverage Under Builder's Risk Policy Properly Excluded for Damage to Existing Structure Only

    Client Alert: Expert Testimony in Indemnity Action Not Limited to Opinions Presented in Underlying Matter

    Top 10 OSHA Violations For The Construction Industry In 2023

    Issues of Fact Prevent Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

    Burden to Prove Exception to Exclusion Falls on Insured

    A Primer on Suspension and Debarment for Federal Construction Projects

    6,500 Bridges in Ohio Allegedly Functionally Obsolete or Structurally Deficient

    The Right to Repair Act Isn’t Out for the Count, Yet. Homebuilders Fight Back

    No Coverage for Restoring Aesthetic Uniformity

    Two Worthy Insurance Topics: (1) Bad Faith, And (2) Settling Without Insurer’s Consent

    LAX Construction Defect Suit May Run into Statute of Limitations

    Insurers May Not Be Required to Defend Contractors In a Florida §558 Proceeding

    Anchoring Abuse: Evolution & Eradication

    Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

    Common Law Indemnity Claim Affirmed on Justifiable Beliefs

    Negligent Inspection Claim Against Supervising Design Professional / Consultant

    Contractors Sued for Slip

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Utah for Damage Caused By Faulty Workmanship

    Thank You Once Again for the Legal Elite Election for 2022

    The Most Expensive Travel Construction Flops

    Wildfires Threaten to Make Home Insurance Unaffordable

    Enhanced Geothermal Energy Could Be the Next Zero-Carbon Hero

    'Right to Repair' and Fixing Equipment in a Digital Age

    Recycled Water and New Construction. New Standards Being Considered

    Register and Watch Partner John Toohey Present on the CLM Webinar Series!

    CDJ’s #6 Topic of the Year: Does Colorado Need Construction Defect Legislation to Spur Affordable Home Development?

    Taking Service Network Planning to the Next Level

    3D Printing Innovations Enhance Building Safety

    New York Court Discusses Evidentiary Standards for Policy Rescission Based on Material Misrepresentation
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Safety Accusations Fly in Dispute Between New York Developer and Contractor

    July 01, 2019 —
    The developer of a New York City high rise and the project's former prime contractor are trading unusually nasty safety related accusations in a dispute over the contractor's exit from the project. The contractor, New York City-based Pizzarotti, claims the settlement of the structure in soft soils creates hazards in future work that could send building components crashing to the streets. In reply, developer Fortis Property Group says the contractor’s uneven pace of work is to blame for what it sees as only slab misalignments that don’t compromise safety in any way. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
    Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

    High-Rise Condominium Construction Design Defects, A Maryland Construction Lawyer’s Perspective

    July 15, 2015 —
    The increased migration from suburbs to metropolitan areas has accompanied an increase in high-rise construction, including the development of high-rise condominium buildings. The resulting metamorphosis of urban skylines, such as seen from Maryland’s Baltimore harbor, has also brought with it many complex construction law and construction litigation issues. Our law firm’s Maryland condominium construction law practice is increasingly called upon to resolve disputes involving high-rise condominium construction design defects between condominium associations, developers, contractors, builders, and design professionals arising out of the construction of high-rise buildings. A condominium building is typically considered to be a high-rise when it is approximately seven or more stories above grade according to the National Fire Protection Association Life Safety Code, which defines a high-rise as being 75 feet (23 meters) measured from the lowest level accessible to fire department vehicles up to the floor level of the highest occupiable story. High-rise buildings may be residential (e.g., condominiums or multifamily apartment buildings), commercial (e.g., commercial office or retail space), or mixed-use structures. A mixed-use high-rise development might contain retail space, office space, a parking garage, apartments, and condominiums, each owned or maintained by separate entities and each sharing common expenses for the building. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.
    Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

    Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    June 10, 2015 —
    While some of their claims were dismissed, plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty survived the insurer's motion to dismiss. Senft v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61870 (D. N.J. May 12, 2015). Plaintiffs' waterfront home was insured by Fireman's Fund. Plaintiffs alleged that the broker represented that the policy would provide (1) coverage in the event of a hurricane,(2) the "highest level of protection" offered by Fireman's Fund, and (3) "exceptional" services in the event of a catastrophe. The policy included a 2% hurricane deductible because of the home's proximity to the ocean. Hurricane Sandy badly damaged plaintiffs' home. Plaintiffs alleged that the winds from Sandy battered their home long before the storm surge reached the structure. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Key Amendments to Insurance Claims-Handling Regulations in Puerto Rico

    September 23, 2019 —
    Policyholders in Puerto Rico should be aware of significant benefits provided by recent amendments to the Insurance Code. New rules establish an expedited method of property insurance dispute resolution, mandatory expedited partial payments in the event of catastrophic events, and protection against bad faith claims handling by insurers. Appraisal Process with a Puerto Rican Twist A key amendment is the establishment of an appraisal process, widely used for many years in the United States and now adopted in Puerto Rico. Commercial and personal property insurers in Puerto Rico shall include, in their policies, a clause for an appraisal process according to Article 11.150 of the Insurance Code of Puerto Rico, 26 L.P.R.A. § 101 et seq. (“the Code”). The appraisal process provides both policyholders and insurers the option to submit insurance claims to an impartial umpire if a dispute arises over the value of covered damages or losses. The umpire and appraisers do not have authority to resolve coverage or legal issues. They can only resolve disputes over the quantum claimed for losses already determined to be covered by the insurer. Id. Each party is required to pay its own appraiser’s fees and split equally the fees of the umpire. Id. Reprinted courtesy of Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Avila may be contacted at ara@sdvlaw.com Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Bert L. Howe & Associates to Join All-Star Panel at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    March 26, 2014 —
    Don MacGregor of Bert L. Howe & Associates, a consulting firm, will join fellow panelists Hon. Peter Lichtman (ret), Hon. Nancy Wieben Stock (ret), Peter S. Curry, Brian Kahn, Esq., and Paul R. Kiesel, Esq in a break-out discussion entitled “Working Smarter with Technology” at this year’s West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar being held May 15th-16th at the world-famous Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim, California. West Coast Casualty's Construction Defect Seminar is the largest seminar of its kind worldwide focusing on all of the elements of the prosecution, defense, coverage and technologies of construction defect claims and litigation from a national perspective. With offices in California, Nevada, Colorado, Florida and Texas (Houston & San Antonio), Bert L. Howe & Associates provides construction consulting and expert witness services to insurance professionals and lawyers specializing in construction defect litigation, construction risk analysis, and property claims arising from construction-related activities. Download an Invitation and Register... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Shifting the Risk of Delay by Having Float Go Your Way

    July 05, 2021 —
    Critical path delay plays a central role in allocating responsibility for project delay. The interrelated concept of concurrency is also frequently determinative of entitlement on a range of claims including by owners for liquidated damages and by contractors for delay damages. What constitutes critical/concurrent delay, however, is hotly debated by scheduling experts. The lack of real consensus regarding how critical/concurrent delay should be determined and analyzed has created significant uncertainty in scheduling disputes. Indeed, courts have adopted differing and at times conflicting theories of concurrency that can produce divergent outcomes for the parties. In an effort to reduce uncertainty, stakeholders have increasingly adopted specialized contractual provisions and scheduling techniques which have significant implications for the evaluation of the companion concepts of criticality and concurrency. One such mechanism is float sequestration. Regardless of whether float sequestration is ultimately in the construction industry’s broader interest, stakeholders must be able to recognize its use and appreciate the implications for delay disputes on their projects. Simply defined, float is the number of days an activity can be delayed before affecting the project’s critical path (i.e., the longest chain of activities which determines the project’s minimal duration). Typically, only delays affecting the critical path can produce concurrent delay. Consequently, the concept of float is integral to understanding and resolving issues of both criticality and concurrency. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher J. Brasco, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP and Matthew D. Baker, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP Mr. Brasco may be contacted at cbrasco@watttieder.com Mr. Baker may be contacted at mbaker@watttieder.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Supreme Court Overrules Longstanding Decision Supporting Collection of Union Agency Fees

    July 02, 2018 —
    In a 5 to 4 opinion, the United States Supreme Court overruled a longstanding decision which required government employees who are represented by but do not belong to a union, to pay a fair share or agency fee to cover the union's costs for collective bargaining activities. In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), the Supreme Court found that requiring such fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment: "[n]either an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay." Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys Amy R. Patton, Blake A. Dillion and Eric C. Sohlgren Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com Mr. Sohlgren may be contacted at ecs@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Environmental Justice: A Legislative and Regulatory Update

    November 01, 2021 —
    Environmental Justice, as an urgent policy priority of the Federal Government, dates back to 1994, and President Clinton’s issuance of Executive Order 12898. This order directed federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, “the disproportionately high and adverse human health and environment effects of its many programs, policies, and procedures on minority populations and low-income populations.” Executive Order 12898 supplements Executive Order 12550 (1980), whose primary legal basis was Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in particular, Sections 601 and 602, which prohibit discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal financial aid and assistance. Over the years, the Supreme Court has reviewed the scope and importance of Title VI. For example, in Alexander v. Sandoval, decided in 2001, the Court concluded that while private parties could sue to enforce Section 601 or its implementing regulations, Section 601 only prohibits intentional discrimination; which is very difficult to prove. In addition, the Court ruled in Sandoval, that private parties cannot sue to enforce regulations implementing Section 602. Perhaps as an acknowledgement of these shortcomings, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has for many years operated an administrative system to process environmental justice complaints (see 40 CFR Part 7). The process is complex and the results—usually whether a state agency has failed to uphold Title VI—have generally been unsatisfactory. To be successful, many proponents of environmental justice believe that a statutory foundation must be established, and significant efforts have been made to do so. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com