BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofing
    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


    Independent Contractor v. Employee. The “ABC Test” Does Not Include a Threshold Hiring Entity Test

    Congratulations to Woodland Hills Partner Patrick Au and Senior Associate Ava Vahdat on Their Successful Motion for Summary Judgment!

    Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits

    Making Construction Innovation Stick

    Insurer Rejects Claim on Dolphin Towers

    Alleged Defective Water Pump Leads to 900K in Damages

    Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

    Rhode Island District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Case for Spoliation Due to Potential Unfair Prejudice to Defendant

    Event-Cancellation Insurance Issues During a Pandemic

    Limiting Liability: Three Clauses to Consider in your Next Construction Contract

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Ursinus is Cleared!”

    Burden to Prove Exception to Exclusion Falls on Insured

    New York Team Secures Appellate Win on Behalf of National Home Improvement Chain

    Project Team Upgrades Va. General Assembly

    Melissa Dewey Brumback Invited Into Claims & Litigation Management Alliance Membership

    PPP Loan Extension Ending Aug. 8

    Policy Reformed to Add New Building Owner as Additional Insured

    ASCE Statement on Senate Passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024

    NY Attorney General to Propose Bill Requiring Climate Adaptation for Utilities

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers – Including One Top 10 and Three Top 100 Washington Attorneys

    Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage for Injury To Subcontractor's Employee

    Round and Round: Inside the Las Vegas Sphere

    Condo Buyers Seek to Void Sale over Construction Defect Lawsuit

    City Drops Impact Fees to Encourage Commercial Development

    Alleged Negligent Misrepresentation on Condition of Home is Not an Occurrence Causing Property Damage

    A Win for Policyholders: California Court of Appeals Applies Vertical Exhaustion for Continuous Injury Claims

    Drone Use On Construction Projects

    Pending Home Sales in U.S. Increase Less Than Forecast

    Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

    New Iowa Law Revises Construction Defects Statute of Repose

    As of July 1, 2024, California Will Require Most Employers to Have a Written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and Training. Is Your Company Compliant?

    Direct Contractors In California Should Take Steps Now To Reduce Exposure For Unpaid Wages By Subcontractors

    Manhattan Developer Wants Claims Dismissed in Breach of Contract Suit

    SDNY Vacates Arbitration Award for Party-Arbitrator’s Nondisclosures

    California Supreme Court Declares that Exclusionary Rule for Failing to Comply with Expert Witness Disclosures Applies at the Summary Judgment Stage

    No Subrogation, Contribution Rights for Carrier Defending Construction Defect Claim

    Washington Supreme Court Expands Contractor Notice Obligations

    Struggling Astaldi Announces Defaults on Florida Highway Contracts

    Two Firm Members Among 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

    Is Modular Construction Destined to Fail?

    Defense Owed to Insured Subcontractor, but not to Additional Insured

    How to Build a Water-Smart City

    The Case For Designers Shouldering More Legal Responsibility

    Construction and AI: What Contractors Need to Know from ABC’s New Report

    Insurance Policy’s “No Voluntary Payment” Clauses Lose Some Bite in Colorado

    Taking the Stairs to Human Wellness and Greener Buildings

    140 Days Until The California Consumer Privacy Act Becomes Law - Why Aren't More Businesses Complying?

    Can a Contractor be Liable to Second Buyers of Homes for Construction Defects?

    Recovering Attorney’s Fees and Treble Damages in Washington DC Condominium Construction Defect Cases
    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

    CA Supreme Court Permits Insurers to Bring Direct Actions Seeking Reimbursement of Excessive Fees Against Cumis Counsel Under Limited Circumstances

    August 19, 2015 —
    The California Supreme Court held in Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. (Squire Sanders) (8/10/2015 - #S211645) that if Cumis counsel, operating under a court order which such counsel drafted and which expressly provided that the insurer would be able to recover excessive fees, sought and received fee payments from the insurer that were fraudulent or otherwise manifestly and objectively useless and wasteful when incurred, Cumis counsel have been unjustly enriched at the insurer’s expense and the insurer will be permitted under such limited circumstances to seek reimbursement directly from Cumis counsel. Certain Hartford insureds who had been issued commercial general liability policies were sued in multiple proceedings for a variety of claims, including unfair competition, defamation and intentional misrepresentation. Hartford disclaimed a duty to defend or to indemnify the defendants on the grounds that the acts complained of occurred prior to Hartford’s policy, and that some of the defendants were not Hartford insureds. A coverage action was filed by some of the insureds against Hartford; they were represented by the Squire Sanders law firm. Although Hartford subsequently agreed to defend several of the defendants subject to a reservation of rights, it declined to pay defense expenses incurred prior to the date of such agreement. Some months later, the trial court entered a summary adjudication order, finding that Hartford had a duty to have defended the liability action on the date it was originally tendered; the order required Hartford to fund the insured’s defense with independent counsel (i.e., so-called “Cumis” counsel; see San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358). The insureds retained Squire Sanders as their Cumis counsel. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    WSDOT Seeks Retraction of Waiver Excluding Non-Minority Woman-Owned Businesses from Participation Goals

    September 28, 2017 —
    If you are a regular reader of our blog, you will likely recognize that our firm has been actively involved and concerned with the results of Washington State Department of Transportation’s (“WSDOT”) Disparity Study, which impacts both Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (“DBE”) and general contractors who bid on federally-funded projects with DBE goals. On June 1, 2017, WSDOT implemented a “waiver”, which excluded Caucasian women-owned firms (“WBEs”) from qualifying for Condition of Award DBE Goals on federally-funded projects. This drastic action was the result of WSDOT’s highly criticized 2012 Disparity Study conducted by BBC Research & Consulting of Denver, Colorado, which concluded non-minority women-owned firms do not face “substantial disparities” in the federally-funded transportation contracting market. BBC’s study was criticized for a number of reasons, but most concerning was BBC’s flawed and unreliable statistical methodology that did not accurately represent true marketplace conditions. See Ahlers & Cressman letter of January 9, 2014 and Associated General Contractors of Washington article. For example, BBC’s results showed both decreasing WBE availability and availability vastly out of range with other states (e.g., the availability of women-owned construction firms in Washington was just 1.5% compared to 11.96% in Oregon). Nevertheless, based on this flawed BBC study and BBC’s assertion that women-owned firms did not face disparities, WSDOT sought and on June 1, 2017 was granted a waiver precluding general contractors from counting WBE firms towards their DBE goals on federally funded public works projects. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (09/12/23) – Airbnb’s Future in New York City, MGM Resorts Suffer Cybersecurity Incident, and Insurance Costs Hitting Commercial Real Estate

    October 30, 2023 —
    In our latest roundup, the FDIC handles the portfolio from Signature Bank, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers funds a new center at Illinois, the Athletics take their next steps in their move to Las Vegas, and more!
    1. For those looking to rent an Airbnb for future travel to New York City, it just became much harder with new rules taking effect on September 5th. (Natalie Lung, The Washington Post)
    2. This past weekend MGM Resorts suffered a cybersecurity incident that affected some of the company’s systems with the extent of the incident still unknown. (ABC)
    3. Among issues such as rent increases and general inflation, commercial real estate is also having to contend with rising insurance costs due to climate change. (Justin Worland, Time)
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Bid Protests: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Redeux)

    September 17, 2014 —
    This past week I gave a presentation on a panel entitled “Bid Protests: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” before my local bar association. Thanks to those who attended, my co-presenters and the bar association for sponsoring. Rather than letting my notes gather dust I thought I would share some of the highlights. What is a bid protest? A bid protest is the procedure by which a bidder protests the rejection of its bid or award of a public works contract to another bidder. A bid protest may occur in one of two situations: (1) A public entity rejects the bid of an apparent low bidder and the apparent low bidder protests the rejection; or (2) A public entity awards the contract to the apparent low bidder and another bidder protests the award. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

    Carbon Monoxide Injuries Caused by One Occurrence

    April 01, 2014 —
    Injuries from carbon monoxide poisoning to two families living in the insured's apartment complex arose from a single occurrence. Kosnoski v. Rogers, No. 13-0494, Memorandum and Decision (W. Va. Feb. 18, 2014). The families lived in two apartments in the same complex owed by Marc Rogers. Members of the two families suffered serious injuries from carbon monoxide poisoning and one family member died. A gas boiler furnace in the basement of the apartment complex created the carbon monoxide. 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

    U.K. Construction Resumes Growth Amid Resurgent Housing Activity

    October 07, 2016 —
    The U.K. construction industry returned to growth in September as a measure of housing activity jumped the most since 2013. IHS Markit said on Tuesday that its Purchasing Managers Index jumped to 52.3 from 49.2 in August. It was the highest level in six months and ended a three-month run of readings below 50, the threshold that divides expansion from contraction. The figures add to evidence that the economy is performing better than many predicted following the June decision to leave the European Union. Traders increasingly expect the Bank of England to refrain from adding to its August stimulus package this year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Hamilton, Bloomberg

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

    September 01, 2011 —

    A policy’s “other insurance” clause and a contractual indemnity provision were at the root for determining which of two insurers had to cover for injuries at a construction site. Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 76061 (N.D. Calif. July 14, 2011).

    Hathaway was the general contractor at a demolition and construction project. Hathaway was insured by Zurich. Reinhardt Roofing was the roofing subcontractor. Reinhardt was insured by Valley Forge under a policy which named Hathaway as an additional insured. The subcontract also required Reinhardt to indemnify Hathaway for acts or omissions arising from Reinhardt’s work unless Hathaway was solely negligent.

    Four of Reinhardt’s workers were injured when a canopy roof on which they were working collapsed. At the time of the accident, Hathaway’s on-site supervisor was inspecting a gap in the canopy roof, but did not order Reinhardt’s workers to stop working. 

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Construction Defect Claim not Barred by Prior Arbitration

    October 28, 2015 —
    According to Stan Martin of Commonsense Construction Law LLC, the Appellate Court of Connecticut ruled in favor of the owner of a twenty-two building development in a construction defect suit despite the contractor’s objection “that the lawsuit was barred by doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel.” When issues of “construction and alleged defects” arose in 1996, the “contractor eventually filed for arbitration, seeking the contract balance.” The contractor was awarded $82,812.81. During the arbitration, “no claims for defective construction were advanced.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of