BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim 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


    Cyber Thieves Phish Away a $735K Payment to a Minnesota Contractor

    Denver Court Rules that Condo Owners Must Follow Arbitration Agreement

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 38 White and Williams Lawyers

    Compliance with Contractual and Jurisdictional Pre-Suit Requirements is Essential to Maximizing Recovery

    First-Time Homebuyers Make Biggest Share of Deals in 17 Years

    OSHA Updates: You May Be Affected

    CRH to Buy Building-Products Firm Laurence for $1.3 Billion

    Texas Supreme Court to Rehear Menchaca Bad Faith Case

    Labor Under the Miller Act And Estoppel of Statute of Limitations

    The Ghosts of Tariffs Past May Help Us in the Future

    Taking Advantage of New Tax Credits and Prevailing Wage Bonuses Under the Inflation Reduction Act for Clean Energy Construction Projects

    Less Than Perfectly Drafted Endorsement Bars Flood Coverage

    Forethought Is Key to Overcoming Construction Calamities

    No Duty to Indemnify When Discovery Shows Faulty Workmanship Damages Insured’s Own Work

    First-Time Buyers Home Sales Stagnates

    How the Parking Garage Conquered the City

    Joint Venture Dispute Over Profits

    Suppliers Must Also Heed “Right to Repair” Claims

    Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

    Amazon Feels the Heat From Hoverboard Fire Claims

    Trump Administration Waives Border Wall Procurement Rules

    7 Ways Technology is Changing Construction (guest post)

    Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

    Is it the End of the Story for Redevelopment in California?

    Trump Administration Announces New Eviction Moratorium

    The Ups and Downs of Elevator Maintenance Contractor's Policy Limits

    Janus v. AFSCME

    Orion Group Holdings Honored with Leadership in Safety Award

    After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

    Lewis Brisbois Appellate Team Scores Major Victory in Bad Faith Insurance Action

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

    Gene Witkin Celebrates First Anniversary as Member of Ross Hart’s Mediation Team

    Invest In America Act Offers 494 Billion In Funding to U.S. Infrastructure and Millions of New Jobs

    The "Dark Overlord" Strikes The Practice Of Law: What Law Firms Can Do To Protect Themselves

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Named 2019 Super Lawyers

    Hovnanian Reports “A Year of Solid Profitability”

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed To Prove Supplier’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Caused A SB800 Violation

    Steel-Fiber Concrete Link Beams Perform Well in Tests

    Michigan Court of Appeals Remands Construction Defect Case

    No Duty to Defend Suit That Is Threatened Under Strict Liability Statute

    Couple Perseveres to Build Green

    Purely “Compensatory” Debts Owed by Attorneys to Clients (Which Are Not Disciplinary or Punitive Fees Imposed by the State Bar) Are Dischargeable In Bankruptcy

    No Coverage for Tenant's Breach of Contract Claims

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Will Not Address Trigger for DEP Environmental Cleanup Action at This Time

    Fire Tests Inspire More Robust Timber Product Standard

    Fifth Circuit Asks Texas Supreme Court to Clarify Construction Defect Decision

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/17/23) – A Flop in Flipping, Plastic Microbes and Psychological Hard Hats

    Miller Act CLAIMS: Finding Protections and Preserving Your Rights

    Parties Can Agree to Anything In A Settlement Agreement………Or Can They?

    A Lack of Sophistication With the Construction Contract Can Play Out In an Ugly Dispute
    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

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (08/10/22)

    August 29, 2022 —
    The Senate passes the Inflation Reduction Act, construction costs continue to rise across the U.S., commercial real estate advances the adoption of ESG strategies, and more.
    • The recently-passed Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 leaves out the carried interest tax hike, much to the relief of real estate investors worldwide. (Taylor Driscoll, Bisnow)
    • Commercial real estate continues to push forward ESG strategies, given the significant carbon footprints left by most office buildings. (Ted Jackson, CFO)
    • “Space as a Service” tech company Neighbor, which re-purposes under-utilized real estate into storage for tenants, hits its stride in the post-pandemic landscape as the excess of unprofitable space rises. (The Real Deal)
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California

    October 27, 2016 —
    Aside from general statutory prohibitions on lender discrimination, there are certain circumstances under California law in which lenders may be held liable for credit-related actions, such as negotiating or denying credit. See generally 11 Cal. Real Est. § 35:3 (explaining that the business of lending money is subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq., the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 12900 et seq., the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq.). Specifically, lenders have been held liable for credit-related actions where, among other things, the lender (1) breached a loan commitment; (2) committed fraud; or (3) breached a fiduciary duty owed to the borrower. The Lender-Borrower Relationship As a general rule, a lender does not owe a duty of care to a borrower when the lender’s involvement in a transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a lender of money. Oaks Management Corp. v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 453, 466 (“[I]t is established that absent special circumstances . . . a loan transaction is at arms-length and there is no fiduciary relationship between the borrower and lender.”); Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1096 (holding lender owed no duty of care to a borrower in preparing an appraisal of the real property that was security for the loan when the purpose of the appraisal is to protect the lender by satisfying it that the collateral provided adequate security for the loan, and noting that “as a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money”). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

    Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

    March 01, 2012 —

    David Thamann, writing in Property Casualty 360, argues that current actions by legislatures on insurance coverage amount to “legislative interference or overreach.” He notes that under current Colorado law, “a court shall presume that the work of a construction professional that results in property damage — including damage to the work itself or other work — is an accident unless the property damage is intended and expected by the insured.” He argues that here legislators are stepping into the role of the courts. “Insureds and insurers are not always going to be pleased with a court ruling, but that is the system we have.”

    Read the full story…

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

    No Coverage Under Property Policy With Other Insurance and Loss Payment Provisions

    September 17, 2015 —
    The court determined that the other insurance and loss payment provisions relieved the insurer of coverage obligations. Moroney Body Works, Inc. v. Central Ins. Co., 2015 Mass. App. LEXIS 97 (Aug. 6, 2015). A fire destroyed Moroney's custom-built bookmobile that had just been completed. Moroney had two policies: a commercial property policy issued by Central, and a garage insurance policy issued by Pilgrim Insurance Company. Central denied liability for the bookmobile. Pilgrim covered the cost of repairing the bookmobile. It paid $12,449.82 based on the appraiser's estimate of the repair costs. Moroney thought this amount was inadequate given its own estimate of the repair costs. Moroney sued both insurers. Pilgrim settled by paying Moroney an additional amount which, when added to Pilgrim's earlier payment, resulted in Moroney receiving more than the repair cost. Moroney and Central both moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted Moroney's motion. 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

    Avoiding Disaster Due to Improper Licensing

    February 18, 2019 —
    IT’S NOT ENOUGH FOR A CONTRACTOR TO BE LICENSED . . . it must be properly licensed. We are reminded of this by the recent case of JMS Air Conditioning and Appliance Service, Inc. v. Santa Monica Community College District, Bernards Bros., Inc., 30 Cal. App. 5th 945 (2018). In that case, JMS entered into an $8.2M subcontract with Bernards to install an HVAC system in a new facility being built for the District. JMS held a C-20 warm-air heating, ventilating and air-conditioning license. A year into the project, Bernards sought permission from the District to substitute another subcontractor for JMS (as required under Public Contract Code Section 4107 for listed subcontractors on public works of improvement). Among other things, Bernards contended that JMS was not properly licensed to perform that portion of the work which consisted of hydronic plumbing and hydronic boiler work. JMS countered that this work was an integral part of installing an HVAC system, and relied on Business & Profession Code Section 7059, which permits work that is “incidental and supplemental to the performance of the work for which the specialty contractor is licensed,” and a California State Licensing Board regulation which defines “incidental and supplemental” as meaning “essential to accomplish the work in which the contractor is classified.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, §831.) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Candace Matson, Sheppard Mullin
    Ms. Matson may be contacted at cmatson@sheppardmullin.com

    Recent Developments Involving Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington

    September 05, 2022 —
    Ever since the Washington Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington, 176 Wn.2d 686, 295 P.3d 239 (2013), insurance coverage attorneys have been struggling to define the exact parameters of the Cedell ruling in order to safeguard the attorney-client privilege as to the communications between the insurer and its counsel. As a brief background, the Washington Supreme Court held in Cedell that there is a presumption of no attorney-client privilege in a lawsuit involving bad faith claims handling. However, an insurer can overcome the presumption of no attorney-client privilege by showing that its counsel provided legal advice regarding the insurer’s potential liability under the policy and law, and did not engage in any quasi-fiduciary activities, i.e. claims handling activities, such as investigating, evaluating, adjusting or processing the insured’s claim. Since Cedell, various trial courts have held that the following activities by an insurer’s counsel constitute quasi-fiduciary conduct that do not overcome the presumption of no attorney-client privilege, resulting in an order to produce documents and/or to permit the deposition of the insurer’s counsel:
    • Insurer’s attorney being the primary or sole point of contact with the insured for the insurer;
    • Insurer’s attorney requesting documents from the insured that are relevant to the investigation of the claim;
    • Insurer’s attorney communicating directly with the insured or the insured’s counsel regarding claims handling issues or payments;
    • Insurer’s attorney interviewing witnesses for purposes of the investigation of the claim;
    • Insurer’s attorney conducting an examination under oath of the insured;
    • Insurer’s attorney drafting proposed or final reservation of rights letter or denial letter to the insured; and
    • Insurer’s attorney conducting settlement negotiations in an underlying litigation.
    Reprinted courtesy of Donald Verfurth, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Sally Kim, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Stephanie Ries, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and Kyle Silk-Eglit, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Mr. Verfurth may be contacted at dverfurth@grsm.com Ms. Kim may be contacted at sallykim@grsm.com Ms. Ries may be contacted at sries@grsm.com Mr. Silk-Eglit may be contacted at ksilkeglit@grsm.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    National Lobbying Firm Opens Colorado Office, Strengthening Construction Defect Efforts

    January 05, 2017 —
    Michael Best Strategies, a national law and lobbying firm, has recently opened an office in Colorado. According to the Denver Business Journal, the firm “has recruited several big-name associates — a move that could give business leaders even more clout with the Legislature on issues such as construction-defects reform.” One of the firm’s recruits, Jeff Thormodsgaard, the lead lobbyist in the recent movement to make it harder to sue condominium builders, told the Denver Business Journal, “The only change [in the construction-defects reform effort] is that we’re going to be adding more feet and more boots on the ground and more gravitas.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Assessments Underway After Hurricane Milton Rips Off Stadium Roof, Snaps Crane Boom in Florida

    November 05, 2024 —
    Hurricane Milton and tornados it spurred killed at least five people and knocked out power to 4 million homes and businesses in Florida after making landfall Oct. 9 near Siesta Key in Sarasota County. With assessments and rescues still underway, state officials say the damage was not as bad as it could have been. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of