BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction 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


    Colorado Governor Polis’s Executive Order D 2020 101: Keeping Up with Colorado’s Shifting Eviction Landscape during COVID-19

    Brown and Caldwell Appoints Stigers as Design Chief Engineer

    U.S. Judge Says Wal-Mart Must Face Mexican-Bribe Claims

    When is Forum Selection in a Construction Contract Enforceable?

    Sustainability Is an Ever-Increasing Issue in Development

    Newmeyer & Dillion Ranked Fourth Among Medium Sized Companies in 2016 OCBJ Best Places to Work List

    The Burden of Betterment

    Dispute Review Boards for Real-Time Dispute Avoidance and Resolution

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

    Party Cannot Skirt Out of the Very Fraud It Perpetrates

    New York Appellate Court Holds Insurer’s Failure to Defend Does Not Constitute a “Reasonable Excuse” Required to Overturn Judgment

    Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement

    Contractor Side Deals Can Waive Rights

    California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013

    D&O Insurer Must Cover Mortgage Broker’s $15 Million Settlement of Alleged False Claims Act Violations

    Real Protection for Real Estate Assets: Court Ruling Reinforces Importance of D&O Insurance

    First Suit Filed for Losses Caused by COVID-19

    DOE Abruptly Cancels $13B Cleanup Award to BWXT-Fluor Team

    New Jersey Law regarding Prior Expert’s Testimony

    Distinguishing Hawaii Law, New Jersey Finds Anti-Assignment Clause Ineffective

    End of an Era: Los Angeles County Superior Court Closes the Personal Injury Hub

    Bank Window Lawsuit Settles Quietly

    Builders Can’t Rely on SB800

    Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity Rule Gets “Trumped” by Indemnity Provision

    AGC’s 2024 Construction Outlook. Infrastructure is Bright but Office-Geddon is Not

    Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

    California Plant Would Convert Wood Waste Into Hydrogen Fuel

    New York Appellate Court Restores Insurer’s Right to Seek Pro Rata Allocation of Settlements Between Insured and Uninsured Periods

    Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

    President Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order and the Construction Industry

    Senate’s Fannie Mae Wind-Down Plan Faces High Hurdles

    Insurer's Attempt to Strike Experts in Collapse Case Fails

    Port Authority Reaches Deal on Silverstein 3 World Trade

    Boston’s Tunnel Project Plagued by Water

    Pollution Exclusion Found Ambiguous

    Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent

    Is The Enforceability Of A No-Damage-For-Delay Provision Inappropriate For Summary Judgment

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    NYC Developer Embraces Religion in Search for Condo Sites

    Two Years, Too Late: Time-Barred Hurricane Loss is Timely Reminder to Insureds

    Architect Named Grand Custom Home Winner for Triangular Design

    Generally, What Constitutes A Trade Secret Is A Question of Fact

    Cape Town Seeks World Cup Stadium Construction Collusion Damages

    Brazil's Detained Industry Captain Says No Plea Deals Coming

    Can’t Get a Written Change Order? Document, Document, Document

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

    Congratulations to Las Vegas Team on Their Successful Motion for Summary Judgment!

    Contractors’ Right to Sue in Washington Requires Registration

    California’s Prompt Payment Laws: Just Because an Owner Has Changed Course Doesn’t Mean It’s Changed Course on Previous Payments

    Brazil's Success at Hosting World Cup Bodes Well for Olympics
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Fairfield's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Claim Against Broker for Failure to Procure Adequate Coverage Survives Summary Judgment

    April 15, 2014 —
    The broker's motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss negligence claims for failure to obtain adequate coverage, was denied by the court in Voss v. The Netherlands Ins. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 384 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2014). The insured met with a representative of CH Insurance Brokerage Services Co., Inc. (CHI) to discuss coverage for the premises and her two companies. At CHI's request, the insured shared information on sales figures for calculating business interruption coverage. The broker represented that CHI would reassess and revisit the coverage needs as her business grew. CHI recommended $75,000 per incident in coverage for business interruption losses. The insured questioned whether the $75,000 limit was adequate, but the broker assured her that it was sufficient. The insured then accepted the recommendation. Subsequently, the insured's business grew, but CHI renewed the policy with the same $75,000 business interruption limit. 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

    EPA Expands Energy Star, Adds Indoor airPLUS

    February 05, 2015 —
    Builder Magazine reported that the EPA has added a new energy certification program, Indoor airPLUS. Builder Beazer Homes has “embraced the initiative,” according to Builder, and all of its homes in the Phoenix division is Indoor airPLUS certified. Brian Shanks, purchasing manager for Beazer, explained to builder about some of the additional requirements: “It requires some additional air-sealing techniques and other HVAC and ventilation things.” According to Builder, the indoor air quality program is designed to especially help those who suffer from respiratory issues. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Must Cover Portions of Arbitration Award

    October 14, 2019 —
    The court determined that there was coverage in a construction defect case for portions of an arbitration award. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Century Sur. Co., 2019 U.S. DIst. LEXIS 116093 (S.D. Texas July 12, 2019). Descon Construction contracted with the City of Edinburg, Texas, to build a library. Descon subcontracted with McAllen Steel Erectors to install the library metal roof. The roof began to leak within two months of occupancy. The leaks continued for seven years. Edinburg sued Descon. The matter was arbitrated. The arbitration panel found that the library roof was defective, the exterior stucco system was defectively installed and certain work, including fire-caulking, had not been performed. The panel concluded that Descon was liable for breach of contract and breach of warranty. The panel determined that Edinburg was entitled to replacement of the existing roof. Further, McAllen was found to have breached its subcontract with Descon by defectively installing the roof, entitling Descon to recover $762,537 from McAllen. 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

    Crisis Averted! Pennsylvania Supreme Court Joins Other Courts in Finding that Covid-19 Presents No Physical Loss or Damage for Businesses

    October 21, 2024 —
    Seeking to find some relief from business losses experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses turned to their property insurers for coverage for their lost income. A clear national trend emerged among courts deciding the issue, as most businesses could not establish coverage because they had not experienced a “direct physical loss of or damage to their covered property” as required by most policies. While this legal question may have become an afterthought for many attorneys, the question remained an open one in Pennsylvania while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered two contradictory holdings issued in the Superior Court on this topic. Compare Macmiles, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch., 286 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding there was no coverage for loss of use of a commercial property unaccompanied by any physical alteration or other physical condition that rendered the property unusable or uninhabitable) with Ungarean v. CNA, 286 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding that the policy at issue was ambiguous and therefore the policy covered the insured for COVID-related business losses). Last week, the Supreme Court considered the Superior Court’s holdings in Macmiles and Ungarean and held, at long last, that COVID-19 did not cause a direct physical loss of or damage to covered property. Reprinted courtesy of Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Defenses Raised Three-Years Too Late Estop Insurer’s Coverage Denial

    February 21, 2022 —
    Liability insurance typically affords broad defense coverage. But insurers sometimes reserve their right to challenge the insured’s right to a defense, or even outright terminate the defense. When this occurs after the insurer has been in exclusive control of the defense, some courts recognize that the consequences can be catastrophic for the insured defendant. Insurers, therefore, may be estopped from denying coverage where doing so will prejudice the insured. This is exactly what transpired in RLI Ins. Co. v. AST Engineering Corp., No. 20-214 (2d Cir. Jan. 12, 2022), where the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that an insurer’s attempt to withdraw the defense it had provided to its insured for three years would prejudice the insured. In AST Engineering, RLI sought a declaration that it did not have to defend the insured, AST, in two underlying cases in which AST was sued as a third-party defendant. The underlying cases concerned a construction project in New York City for which AST provided engineering drawings on October 28, 2012. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Denver Passed the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

    August 27, 2014 —
    ABC 7 reported that Denver, Colorado has passed a city ordinance that will require “developers building 30 or more units to offer 10 percent of them at a cheaper rate.” The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is meant to increase the number of homes for “middle income earners.” "This city is really facing a housing crisis when it comes to affordability," Samaria Crews, deputy director of the Front Range Economic Strategy Center, told ABC 7. Builders can opt out of the ordinance by paying a fee, and a “new amendment would allow builders to build the low-income inventory off-site.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Temporary Obstructions Are a Permanent Problem Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

    March 12, 2015 —
    Boxes, ladders, furniture or other objects commonly placed in aisles, walkways or paths may not be temporary obstructions and may be actionable under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) according to a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. DBA Pier 1 Imports #1132, No. 12-16857 (filed March 5, 2015). Many property and business owners have long operated under the assumption that they are not violating ADA regulations requiring minimum clear widths for accessible routes (“[t]he minimum clear width of an accessible route shall be 36 in[ches]” (28 C.F.R. pg. 36, app. A, § 4.3.3)) when they place objects that can easily be removed in aisles or pathways such as trash cans, ladders, plants, signs and the like because temporary obstructions are not considered violations of the ADA (28 C.F.R. § 36.211(b)). Reprinted courtesy of Max W. Gavron, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Keith M. Rozanski, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Gavron may be contacted at mgavron@hbblaw.com Mr. Rozanski may be contacted at krozanski@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Again Defines Extent of Contractor’s Insurance Coverage

    November 26, 2014 —
    The ever changing landscape of insurance coverage for contractors continues to be clarified in Texas. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals applied Texas law in Crownover v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company, concluding that contractors do have insurance coverage to cover claims that a project was not constructed in a good and workmanlike manner. In this case, the Crownovers hired a contractor to build a house. The contract contained a warranty-to-repair clause. Shortly after construction was completed, cracks began to appear in the walls and foundation, and there were problems with the heating and air conditioning system. The Crownovers demanded that the contractor repair the problems and the contractor refused. The Crownovers brought an arbitration proceeding against the contractor and prevailed, obtaining a judgment that the contractor must pay for repairs to the foundation and HVAC system. The contractor then filed for bankruptcy and the bankruptcy court allowed the Crownovers to pursue their claim against the contractor’s insurer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com