BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield 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


    Brazil's Detained Industry Captain Says No Plea Deals Coming

    Google, Environmentalists and University Push Methane-Leak Detection

    “Rip and Tear” Damage Remains Covered Under CGL Policy as “Accident”—for Now.

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- An Alternative

    Approaches to Managing Job Site Inventory

    General Contractors: Consider Importance of "Primary Noncontributory" Language

    HVAC System Collapses Over Pool at Gaylord Rockies Resort Colorado

    When Can Customers Sue for Delays?

    Home Builders Wear Many Hats

    Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Protecting the Integrity of Referral Sources under Florida Statute s. 542.335

    Collaborating or Competing with Construction Tech Startups

    Dreyer v. Am. Natl. Prop. & Cas. Co. Or: Do Not Enter into Nunn-Agreements for Injuries that Occurred After Expiration of the Subject Insurance Policy

    Ninth Circuit Construes Known Loss Provision

    Indiana Appellate Court Allows Third-Party Spoliation Claim to Proceed

    Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Area Variance Standard; Property Owners May Obtain an Area Variance When Special Circumstances Existed at Purchase

    Rising Construction Disputes Require Improved Legal Finance

    Are Modern Buildings Silently Killing Us?

    California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

    Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

    Revisiting the CMO; Are We Overusing the Mediation Privilege?

    Experts Weigh In on Bilingual Best Practices for Jobsites

    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

    Counter the Rising Number of Occupational Fatalities in Construction

    It’s Too Late, Lloyd’s: New York Federal Court Finds Insurer Waived Late Notice Defense

    Insurer Fails to Establish Prejudice Due to Late Notice

    What Buyers Want in a Green Home—and What They Don’t

    How BIM Can Serve Building Owners

    Policy's Limitation Period for Seeking Replacement Costs Not Enforced Where Unreasonable

    New York’s Lawsky Proposes Changes to Reduce Home Foreclosures

    Requesting an Allocation Between Covered and Non-Covered Damages? [Do] Think Twice, It’s [Not Always] All Right.

    Minnesota Addresses How Its Construction Statute of Repose Applies to Condominiums

    General Contractor’s Intentionally False Certifications Bar It From Any Recovery From Owner

    How Are You Dealing with Material Delays / Supply Chain Impacts?

    Gene Witkin Joins Ross Hart’s Mediation Team at AMCC

    Couple Gets $79,000 on $10 Million Construction Defect Claim

    Condominium Association Responsibility to Resolve Construction Defect Claims

    Consultant Says It's Time to Overhaul Construction Defect Laws in Nevada

    Newmeyer & Dillion Selected to 2017 OCBJ’s Best Places to Work List

    Montana Court Finds Duty to Defend over Construction Defect Allegation

    Sustainability Puts Down Roots in Real Estate

    Colorado “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    When Does a Claim Against an Insurance Carrier for Failing to Defend Accrue?

    Texas City Pulls Plug on Fossil Fuels With Shift to Solar

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    David M. McLain, Esq. to Speak at the 2014 CLM Claims College

    Georgia Law: “An Occurrence Can Arise Where Faulty Workmanship Causes Unforeseen or Unexpected Damage to Other Property”

    Delaware District Court Finds CGL Insurer Owes Condo Builder a Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims — Based on the Subcontractor Exception to the Your Work Exclusion

    Demonstrating A Fraudulent Inducement Claim Or Defense

    Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company

    See the Stories That Drew the Most Readers to ENR.com in 2023
    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

    California Supreme Court Clarifies Deadline to File Anti-SLAPP Motions in Light of Amended Pleadings

    July 02, 2018 —
    California’s “anti-SLAPP” (“SLAPP” is an acronym for strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute—codified at California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 et seq.—is the primary vehicle for defending against any action involving petitioning or free speech. The statute was designed to provide an early and fast summary judgment-like procedure to allow defendants and cross-defendants to file a motion to dismiss either an entire complaint, specific causes of action, or even just portions of a cause of action, and to require the plaintiff to respond before conducting discovery. By facilitating an early challenge to a plaintiff or cross-complainant’s claims, the anti-SLAPP statute allows the responding party to avoid the costs and delay that chill the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(f), an anti-SLAPP motion must be filed “within 60 days of the service of the complaint . . . .” But what if the plaintiff files an ameded complaint? In Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) 4 Cal.5th 637, the California Supreme Court held that the 60-day timeline runs from the date a complaint is filed with the cause(s) of action challenged in the anti-SLAPP motion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

    OSHA Set to Tag More Firms as Severe Violators Under New Criteria

    November 01, 2022 —
    In announcing last month broadened criteria for classifying employers as severe safety violators, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration official Douglas Parker singled out a steel fabricator near El Paso, Texas. The U.S. Labor Dept. assistant secretary for occupational safety and health, he posted a blog stating that OSHA had placed Kyoei Steel Ltd. in its severe violators program, which subjects the firm to numerous re-inspections until it is allowed to exit. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record and Stephanie Loder, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Federal Court Dismisses Coverage Action in Favor of Pending State Proceeding

    October 12, 2020 —
    The federal district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the coverage action that was parallel to a case pending in state court involving the same parties and same issues pending. Navigators Ins, Co. v. Chriso's Tree Trimming, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129711 (E.D. Calif. July 22, 2020). Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) entered into a tree, brush and wood removal contract with Mount F Enterprises, Inc. Mountain F subsequently entered into a subcontractor agreement with Chriso Tree Trimming, Inc. for work to be performed for PG&E. In August 2017, Chriso attempted to remove a tree, but the tree accidentally fell in the wrong direction and knocked down nearby powerlines. The powerlines came into contact with surrounding brush and started the "Railroad Fire." The fire was eventually contained on September 15, 2017, after 12, 407 acres were burned and 7 structures and 7 homes were destroyed. Five subrogation lawsuits were filed in state court against Chriso and Mountain F by various insurance companies that paid for the damage caused by the Railroad Fire. A policy limits demand to settle all claims against Chriso and Mountain F was made. Navigators insured Chriso for $9 million through a Commercial Excess Liability Policy, payable once all other insurance was exhausted. The policy included a "Professional Services Endorsement" (PSE Exclusion) that excluded coverage of "professional services." "Professional services" was defined through a list of 12 non-exclusive professions and services that generally referred to activities involving specialized knowledge or skill that was predominantly mental or intellectual in nature rather than physical or manual. 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

    Even with LEED, Clear Specifications and Proper Documentation are Necessary

    December 31, 2014 —
    A recent lawsuit filed in California over the proper documentation necessary for LEED certification (discussed in detail at the Green Building Law Update) emphasizes the fact that, no matter how detailed the LEED certification process seems to be, a mere reference to that process or a certain level of LEED certification is far from sufficient to assure a smooth project. While I don’t practice in California and don’t have any idea how the lawsuit will turn out, the fact that there is litigation over even the basics of LEED like documentation shows the clear necessity to make sure that your specifications and contract documents are specific and clear from the beginning. Owners, General Contractors and Subcontractors need to remember this fact at all times and particularly in situations where, like in the instance of LEED, the “specification” seems to be set out by others. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Are Untimely Repairs an “Occurrence” Triggering CGL Coverage?

    January 17, 2023 —
    All Class A commercial contractors in Virginia are required to have a minimum level of Commercial General Liability (CGL) coverage. As a general rule, this insurance is there for damage to property or persons arising from an “occurrence” that is covered by the policy. Many cases that are litigated relating to coverage for certain events under a CGL policy turn on the definition of “occurrence” and whether the event leading to a request for coverage constitutes an “occurrence.” A recent case in Fairfax County, Virginia, Erie Insurance Exchange v. Spalding Enterprises, et al., is just such a case. In the Spalding Enterprises case, the Court considered the following scenario. A homeowner, Mr. Yen contracted with Spalding Enterprises to fix some fire damage at his home. Spalding promised the repairs would be complete in October of 2019. However, after Mr. Yen paid a $300,000.00 deposit, Spalding Enterprises stated that the work would not be completed until November of 2019. Yen then fired Spalding Enterprises and sued for breach of contract, constructive fraud, and violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. Spalding Enterprises sought coverage from Erie Insurance for the claim and Erie denied coverage and sought a declaratory judgment that the events alleged in the Complaint by Mr. Yen did not fall under the definition of “occurrence” in the CGL policy held by Spalding Enterprises. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Haight’s John Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2020 Southern California Rising Stars

    July 20, 2020 —
    Congratulations to attorneys T. Giovanni “John” Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty who were selected to the Super Lawyers 2020 Southern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Reprinted courtesy of T. Giovanni “John” Arbucci, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Arbucci may be contacted at jarbucci@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Why Should Businesses Seek Legal Help Early On?

    December 03, 2024 —
    Most business owners are natural problem solvers. They assess the issue that lies before them and develop a strategy to overcome it. It’s a critical mindset to have, but do all business owners have the skillset to solve every issue? While it is understandable that business owners may want to attempt to resolve issues on their own, it is invariably beneficial to obtain guidance for legal issues earlier rather than later. 3 Reasons to Consult an Attorney Sooner than Later Many people might consider working with an attorney to be a last resort. Typically, this is not the case; rather, getting knowledgeable legal counsel sooner than later can help business owners because:
    1. It’s Cheaper: Early legal intervention can often prevent disputes from leading to litigation, which can be expensive. Working with an attorney to resolve a conflict before it escalates into a larger issue is often a good business decision and wise investment.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott L. Baker, Baker & Associates
    Mr. Baker may be contacted at slb@bakerslaw.com

    Other Colorado Cities Looking to Mirror Lakewood’s Construction Defect Ordinance

    October 22, 2014 —
    The Denver Post reported that some Colorado metro communities “say they are ready to take a hard look at modifying Colorado's law on builder defects, which they blame for hampering new condominium construction amid the buildout of the region's 122-mile commuter-rail system.” Lone Tree has “scheduled a study session for Tuesday to discuss drafting its own construction-defects ordinance while a city councilmember in Englewood has put in a request that the city take up the topic.” According to the Denver Post, “Brighton, Broomfield and Centennial…also want to give the issue more attention.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of