BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failure
    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


    When Is a Project Delay Material and Actionable?

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    New Joint Venture to Develop a New Community in Orange County, California

    Account for the Imposition of Material Tariffs in your Construction Contract

    Justin Bieber’s Unpaid Construction Bill Stalls House Sale

    Massachusetts Federal Court Holds No Coverage for Mold and Water Damage Claim

    Read Before You Sign: Claim Waivers in Project Documents

    Top 10 Take-Aways from the 2024 Fall Forum Meeting in Pittsburgh

    Court Affirms Summary Adjudication of Bad Faith Claim Where Expert Opinions Raised a Genuine Dispute

    Homebuilding Continues to Recover in San Antonio Area

    Economic Loss Rule Bars Claims Against Manufacturer

    Certified Question Asks Washington Supreme Court Whether Insurer is Bound by Contradictory Certificate of Insurance

    Rihanna Gained an Edge in Construction Defect Case

    Federal Interpleader Dealing with Competing Claims over Undisputed Payable to Subcontractor

    Federal Miller Act Payment Bond Claim: Who Gets Paid and Who Does Not? What Are the Deadlines?

    Understanding Lien Waivers

    The Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

    SunTrust Will Pay $968 Million to Resolve Mortgage Probes

    Washington Supreme Court Interprets Ensuing Loss Exception in All-Risk Property Insurance Policy

    Housing Starts in U.S. Little Changed From Stronger January

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “That’s Not How I Read It”

    Around the State

    California Fire Lawyers File Suit Against PG&E on Behalf of More Than 50 Wildfire Victims

    Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Damages in Excess of Policy Limits Do Not Trigger Right to Independent Counsel

    Savannah Homeowners Win Sizable Judgment in Mold Case against HVAC Contractor

    NY Gov. Sets Industry Advisory Council to Fix Public Contracts Process

    The Credibility of Your Expert (Including Your Delay Expert) Matters in Construction Disputes

    FEMA, Congress Eye Pre-Disaster Funding, Projects

    Los Angeles Construction Sites May Be on Fault Lines

    Colorado Supreme Court Rules that Developers Retain Perpetual Control over Construction Defect Covenants

    “Since You Asked. . .”

    Mass. Gas Leak Follows NTSB Final Report, Call for Reforms

    #9 CDJ Topic: Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al.

    Blue Gold: Critical Water for Critical Energy Materials

    Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

    Free Texas MCLE Seminar at BHA Houston June 13th

    Do You Really Want Mandatory Arbitration in Your Construction Contract?

    New Orleans Reviews System After Storm Swamps Pumps

    Roadway Contractor Owed Duty of Care to Driver Injured Outside of Construction Zone

    Milhouse Engineering and Construction, Inc. Named 2022 A/E/C Building a Better World Award Winner

    Orion Group Holdings Honored with Leadership in Safety Award

    How Many Bridges Does the Chesapeake Bay Need?

    Not If, But When: Newly Enacted Virginia Legislation Bans “Pay-If-Paid” Clauses In Construction Contracts

    New Mexico Adopts Right to Repair Act

    Downtown Sacramento Building Riddled with Defects

    Insurer Must Produce Documents After Failing To Show They Are Confidential

    Billion-Dollar Power Lines Finally Inching Ahead to Help US Grids

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Gets Construction Defect Bill to Committee

    Fire Tests Inspire More Robust Timber Product Standard
    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

    Like Water For Chocolate: Insurer Prevails Over Chocolatier In Hurricane Sandy Claim

    November 08, 2017 —
    Recently, a New Jersey Magistrate ruled that an insurer did not have to provide coverage for a chocolatier’s property damage and business interruption losses due to Hurricane Sandy. Madeline Chocolate Novelties Inc. (Madeline), a family-owned chocolatier in Queens Rockaway Beach, held a one-year all-risk policy with Great Northern Insurance (Great Northern). The policy contained a flood exclusion and a windstorm endorsement. When Hurricane Sandy hit in October 2012, Madeline suffered extensive damage and ceased operations during the ensuing holiday season. The chocolatier claimed $40 million in property damage and $13.5 million in business interruption losses and sought coverage under its policy. Great Northern paid just under $4 million and denied the remainder of the claim, citing the policy’s flood exclusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com

    Supreme Court Eliminates Judicial 'Chevron' Deference to Federal Agency Statutory Interpretations

    July 31, 2024 —
    Washington, D.C. (July 1, 2024) – In a much-anticipated decision, on June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a sweeping opinion “overrul[ing]” a 40-year old precedent that required judges to defer to federal agency interpretations of their governing statutes when those laws were ambiguous or silent. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, et al. No. 22-451 (2024), overruling Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The decision means that courts will no longer give special weight to an agency’s view of the scope of its regulatory powers but must apply independent judgment in deciding “whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” Loper Bright, slip op. at 35. Taking pains to explain that the new ruling would not allow for reversals of cases previously decided under the Chevron doctrine, the Court left no doubt that, in the words of Justice Neil Gorsuch, “[t]oday, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss.” Id., Gorsuch Concurring Opinion at 1. Writing for a 6-2 majority, Chief Justice Roberts forcefully condemned the Chevron-based principle that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of the scope of its legal authority, rejecting the concept that agencies have any special expertise in statutory interpretation, a field reserved to the courts, not the executive branch, under Article III of the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jane C. Luxton, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com

    Gilbane Project Exec Completes His Mission Against the Odds

    January 19, 2017 —
    Afghanistan’s new Ministry of Defense headquarters in Kabul was supposed to symbolize the nation’s future—and U.S. support in that effort—as a self-sustaining, sophisticated structure akin to the Pentagon. But U.S. funding shortfalls stretched an anticipated 18-month project, which began in 2009, into years. While experienced in running projects in an underdeveloped country in which terror attacks and unstable regional politics are routine, Gilbane Building Co. Project Executive Michael P. Sousa wanted no part of this one in 2013, when he first toured it. “The structure was in a severe state of disrepair and riddled with poor construction,” he says, terming it “an embarrassment” to the U.S. government. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, ENR
    Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com

    New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim

    August 03, 2020 —
    In Crescent Beach Club, LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2020 WL 3414697 (E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2020), the district court considered application of a CGL policy issued to a property owner containing the following exclusion: "This policy does not apply to any ‘bodily injury’, ‘property damage’, ‘personal and advertising injury’, or any other loss, cost, defense fee, expense, injury, damage, claim, dispute or ‘suit’ either arising out of, or related to, any construction, renovation, rehabilitation, demolition, erection, excavation or remedition [sic] of any building and includes planning, site preparation, surveying or other other [sic] construction or development of real property. This exclusion, however, shall not apply to routine maintenance activities." Plaintiff in the underlying action alleged injury while engaged in construction work at the insured’s premises. The information the insurer received was conflicting as to whether plaintiff was demolishing a pergola (excluded) or merely removing vines (not excluded). The insurer reserved its rights accordingly. At his deposition in the underlying action, the plaintiff testified he was in a manlift performing demolition at the time he was injured. The insured’s property manager also testified that the pergola was being demolished. Approximately one month after the depositions, the insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

    Sixth Circuit Holds that Some Official Actions Taken in the “Flint Water Crisis” Could Be Constitutional Due Process Violations

    March 27, 2019 —
    In what the Court of Appeals describes as “the infamous government-created environmental disaster known at the Flint Water Crisis,” a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that some of the government personnel responsible for this disaster may be liable, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for monetary damages based on the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The case is Guertin, et al., v. State of Michigan, et al., decided on January 4, 2019. On April 25, 2014, the City of Flint, MI, facing a financial crisis, agreed to switch its drinking water supply from the water provided by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department to untreated water available from the Flint River that would be treated in the waterworks owned and operated by the City. However, the City waterworks could not provide the needed treatment, which resulted in the corrosive Flint River water leaching lead out of the old Flint water pipes. Soon thereafter, a public health and environmental crisis enveloped Flint. Many lawsuits have been filed against many defendants, and many civil and criminal investigations have been opened. 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

    Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer Returns to Newmeyer Dillion as Partner in Newport Beach Office

    September 14, 2020 —
    Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer has rejoined the firm as a partner in the Newport Beach office. Schotemeyer will expand the firm’s Real Estate Litigation, Construction Litigation, Business Litigation and Labor & Employment practices and strengthen the firm’s legal offerings for companies operating without a dedicated in-house legal counsel. “We are thrilled to be welcoming Dutch back to Newmeyer Dillion. He brings a wealth of litigation experience and has served as a trusted advisor to companies facing myriad complex legal disputes,” said the firm’s Managing Partner, Paul Tetzloff. “His experience as in-house counsel will greatly complement Newmeyer Dillion’s business-first mindset when it comes to providing legal counsel to our clients. He is an invaluable asset to the team.” Prior to rejoining Newmeyer Dillion, Schotemeyer was Vice President and Associate General Counsel for William Lyon Homes, Inc. and Vice President and Deputy General Counsel for Taylor Morrison. His experience as a corporate attorney has strengthened his ability to work with in-house counsel and serve as a relationship attorney that assists clients in managing legal needs by building the right team of legal specialists. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer Dillion
    Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com

    Alabama Supreme Court Reverses Determination of Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    August 26, 2019 —
    Although the lower court held that the insured contractor was entitled to coverage and indemnification under a CGL policy despite claims based upon faulty workmanship, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. David Group, Inc., 2019 Ala. LEXIS 52 (Ala. May 24, 2019). The David Group (TDG) specialized in custom-built homes. The Shahs purchased a newly built home from TDG in October 2006. After moving in, the Shahs experienced problems with their new home that TDG was unable to correct. In February 2008, the Shahs sued TDG. The complaint alleged that serious defects existed, resulting in health and safety issues, building code violations, poor workmanship, misuse of construction materials, and disregard of property installation methods. The case went to arbitration and an award of $12,725 was issued to the Shahs. Nationwide was TDG's CGL carrier and initially defended TDG. After Nationwide withdrew its defense, TDG sued seeking a judgment declaring that Nationwide was obligated to defend and indemnify. The trial court denied Nationwide's motion for summary judgment and issued a partial summary judgment in favor of TDG on the issue of coverage. Nationwide appealed. 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

    Trends in Project Delivery Methods in Construction

    April 03, 2023 —
    The three key measures of a construction project’s success are cost, quality, and time (delays). The project delivery method that the owner of the project selects can affect each of these metrics. Project delivery methods in complex construction projects evolve as technology and processes improve. The traditional methods of design-bid-build (DBB), design-build (DB), and construction management (CM) have been the standard for many years. More recently, however, newer methods such as integrated project delivery (IPD), and public-private partnerships (PPP) have gained traction. Design – Bid – Build (DBB) Design-bid-build is the oldest, most commonly used method of project delivery. It involves three distinct phases: design, bid/award, and construction. An owner asks a team of professionals, such as architects, engineers, and contractors, to produce design documents that will be used to solicit bids. After the owner evaluates the bids and chooses a contractor, a construction contract is written. While this method is the most familiar and well-understood, it can lead to disputes during the construction process as changes are made to the original plans. In DBB, the owner bears the risk for funding increased costs attributed to design changes and related delays – thanks to the Spearin Doctrine, which holds that the owner impliedly warrants the information, plans, and specifications that it provides to a general contractor. See 248 U.S. 132 (1918) Although the owner cannot claim against the contractor, it can make a claim against the design firm. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah B. Biser, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Ms. Biser may be contacted at sbiser@foxrothschild.com