BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut contractor 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


    City Potentially Liable for Cost Overrun on Not-to-Exceed Public Works Contract

    Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

    Attention Contractors: U.S. Department of Labor Issues Guidance on Avoiding Discrimination When Using AI in Hiring

    When it Comes to COVID Emergency Regulations, Have a Plan

    Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)

    Construction Costs Absorb Two Big Hits This Quarter

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/2/24) – Increase in Commercial Property Vacancy Rates, Trouble for the Real Estate Market and Real Estate as a Long-Term Investment

    A Court-Side Seat: Flint Failures, Missed Deadlines, Toad Work and a Game of Chicken

    California Contractors: Amended Section 7141.5 Provides Important License Renewal Safety Net

    There's No Such Thing as a Free House

    Partner John Toohey is Nominated for West Coast Casualty’s Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence!

    Insurer’s Duty to Indemnify Not Ripe Until Underlying Lawsuit Against Insured Resolved

    Chapman Glucksman Press Release

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

    Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

    Manhattan Home Sales Rise at Slower Pace as Prices Jump

    New Case Alert: California Federal Court Allows Policy Stacking to Cover Continuous Injury

    A Court-Side Seat: Citizen Suits, “Facility” Management and Some Nuance for Your Hazard Ranking

    World's Longest Suspension Bridge Takes Shape in Turkey

    Convictions Obtained in Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case

    Another Reason to Love Construction Mediation (Read: Why Mediation Works)

    Federal Courts Reject Insurers’ Attempts to Recoup Defense Costs Expended Under Reservation of Rights

    Washington Court Tunnels Deeper Into the Discovery Rule

    Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform: HB 17-1279 Approved by Colorado Legislature; Governor’s Approval Imminent

    Quick Note: Third-Party Can Bring Common Law Bad Faith Claim

    60-Mile-Long Drone Inspection Flight Points to the Future

    Construction Wall Falls, Hurts Three

    Colorado Legislative Update: HB 20-1155, HB 20-1290, and HB 20-1348

    No Bad Faith In Filing Interpleader

    Three Reasons Late Payments Persist in the Construction Industry

    You Are on Notice: Failure to Comply With Contractual Notice Provisions Can Be Fatal to Your Claim

    Skanska Will Work With Florida on Barge-Caused Damage to Pensacola Bay Bridge

    Potential Coverage Issues Implicated by the Champlain Towers Collapse

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Based Upon Exclusion for Contractual Assumption of Liability

    Affirmed

    Poor Pleading Leads to Loss of Claim for Trespass Due to Relation-Back Doctrine, Statute of Limitations

    Puerto Rico Grid Restoration Plagued by Historic Problems, New Challenges

    “Pay When Paid” Provisions May Not Be Dead, at Least Not Yet

    Amazon Feels the Heat From Hoverboard Fire Claims

    Vacation during a Project? Time for your Construction Documents to Shine!

    Pay Inequities Are a Symptom of Broader Gender Biases, Studies Show

    Construction Contract Clauses Which Go Bump in the Night – Part 1

    Jobsite Safety Should Be Every Contractors' Priority

    Retroactive Application of a Construction Subcontract Containing a Merger Clause? Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal Answers in the Affirmative

    Chinese Demand Rush for Australia Homes to Stay, Ausin Says

    Home Improvement in U.S. Slowing or Still Intact -- Which Is It?

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

    Newport Beach Attorneys John Toohey and Nick Rodriguez Receive Full Defense Verdict

    Waiver of Consequential Damages: The Most Important Provision in a Construction Contract

    Thanks for the Super Lawyers Nod for 2019!
    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

    Reinsurer Must Reimburse Health Care Organization for Settlement Costs

    June 17, 2015 —
    The Indiana Supreme Court reversed summary judgment issued to reinsurer Continental Casualty Company (CNA) and determined it must reimburse the insured for settlement costs under the E & O policy. Wellpoint, Inc., et al. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, et al., 2015 Ind. LEXIS 316 (Ind. April 22, 2015). Anthem, Inc. was a large managed health care organization. Anthem was its own primary and excess insurer for E&O liability. It had numerous excess reinsurers. Beginning in 1998, anthem was confronted by various lawsuits alleging it and other managed care organizations failed to pay claims in a full and timely manner, thereby breaching state and federal statutes. The various lawsuits alleged substantially the same wrongful conduct, namely that after promising to pay doctors in a timely manner for their services, Anthem sought to improperly deny, delay and diminish payments due. The cases were consolidated into a federal multi-district litigation proceeding in the Southern District of Florida. Claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of state prompt pay statutes were dismissed or dropped. Anthem then settled the underlying litigation in July 2005 without admitting and instead denying any wrongdoing or liability. The settlement called for both cash payments and implementation of specific business practices consistent with requested injunctive relief. 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

    Another Colorado District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retroactively

    October 28, 2011 —

    In Martinez v. Mike Wells Construction Company, 09CV227, Teller County District Court Judge Edward S. Colt refused to apply C.R.S. § 13-20-808 retroactively to provide coverage for the underlying construction defect allegations. According to the recitation of facts in Judge Colt’s March 2011 order, Martinez contracted with Mike Wells Construction to serve as the general contractor for the construction of a home. At that time, Mike Wells Construction was insured through ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Company, RRG. Disputes arose between Martinez and Mike Wells Construction, resulting in Martinez ordering it off of the project in mid-November 2007 and terminating its right to work there by letter dated November 28, 2007.

    Mike Wells, the owner of the corporation, subsequently died. Martinez sued Mike Wells Construction in July 2009 for breach of contract and various claims relating to alleged defecting workmanship. Martinez provided notice of the suit to the special administrator of the probate estate. No answer having been filed, the court entered a default judgment against Mike Wells Construction and Martinez sought to garnish Mike Wells Construction’s ProBuilders insurance policy.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. McClain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

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

    An Overview of the New EPA HVAC Refrigerant Regulations and Its Implications for the Construction Industry

    September 30, 2024 —
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced a series of significant changes to the rules governing the use of refrigerants in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. These changes, which were promulgated under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act, are designed to phase down the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a class of potent greenhouse gases. The AIM Act: A Game-Changer for HVAC Industry The recent changes to refrigerant regulations by the EPA signify a substantial shift in environmental policy that will have profound implications for the construction industry. For the construction industry, this means a transition to next-generation technologies that do not rely on HFCs. The AIM Act’s sector-based restrictions will affect a wide range of equipment, including refrigeration and air conditioning systems integral to building design and function. Starting January 1, 2025, the manufacturing or importing of any product in specified sectors that uses a regulated substance with a global warming potential of 700 or greater is prohibited (40 C.F.R. § 84.54(a)). The specified sectors listed include R-410A, the most common refrigerant used in the HVAC industry. The installation of systems using a regulated substance with a global warming potential of 700 or greater in specified sectors is allowed until January 1, 2026, provided that all system components are manufactured or imported before January 1, 2025. See 40 C.F.R. § 84.54 (c). “Installation” of an HVAC system is defined as the completion of assembling the system’s circuit, including charging it with a full charge, such that the system can function and is ready for its intended purpose. See 40 C.F.R. § 84.52. Reprinted courtesy of Stefanie A. Salomon, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Nadia Ennaji, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Salomon may be contacted at ssalomon@pecklaw.com Ms. Ennaji may be contacted at nennaji@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Eighth Circuit Affirms Judgment for Bad Faith after Insured's Home Destroyed by Fire

    January 21, 2019 —
    The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that the insurer acted in bad faith when it denied the insured's claim based upon misrepresentations in the application after destruction of his house by fire. Hayes v. Metropolitan Pro. and Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31813 (8th Cir. Nov. 9, 2018). Hayes' home was insured by Met under a homeowner's policy. Hayes used the detached garage as part of a home base for his plumbing business. He also rented out the second and third levels of the residence to a tenant and her two children. When Hayes applied for the policy in 2007, Met argues he indicated on the application that the premises were not used to conduct business, and were not used as rental property. 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

    Increases in U.S. Office Rents Led by San Jose and Dallas

    October 01, 2014 —
    San Jose, California, and Dallas led the U.S. in office-rent increases in the third quarter as cities benefiting from growth in the technology and energy industries outperformed the gradual national recovery. Rents after any landlord discounts, known as effective rents, climbed 6.7 percent from a year earlier in San Jose, compared with the U.S. average increase of 2.6 percent, property researcher Reis Inc. (REIS) said. Dallas rents rose 5.2 percent, followed by San Francisco’s 5.1 percent gain, Houston’s 4.4 percent increase and New York’s 3.9 percent advance. The national sluggishness in the office market’s growth is being bucked by parts of Northern California and Texas, where large bases of technology or energy workers drive demand for space, Reis said. Throughout the U.S., increases in office occupancies show that the market “is in the midst of a recovery,” according to the New York-based company. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hui-yong Yu, Bloomberg
    Hui-yong Yu may be contacted at hyu@bloomberg.net

    Effective October 1, 2019, Florida General Contractors Have a Statutory Right to Recovery of Attorney Fees Against a Defaulted Subcontractor’s Surety

    July 01, 2019 —
    Florida contractors will soon have a level playing field, at least related to the right to recovery of attorney fees in certain circumstances. Effective October 1, 2019, the Florida statute by which legal fees may be recovered from insurers and sureties was amended to expressly afford that right to contractors. Florida’s Insurance statute, Chapter 627, affords a right to recovery of attorney fees when a judgment is obtained against an insurer and in favor of any insured pursuant to a policy or contract executed by the insurer. See Fla. Stat. § 627.428. In the construction context, the Florida Legislature has also applied this right to the recovery of attorney fees from sureties, for example in circumstances where suit is brought against a surety under a payment or performance bond. See Fla. Stat. § 627.756. But there was an oddity to this statute – it specifically provided this right for “owners” and “subcontractors”, but “contractors” were skipped over. For as long as Section 627.756, Florida Statutes has been on the books, the right to recovery of attorney fees against a surety under a payment or performance bond was only afforded to owners, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen. Specifically, since at least 1977, Section 627.756, Florida Statutes substantially provided as follows (emphasis added): Section 627.428 applies to suits brought by owners, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen against a surety insurer under payment or performance bonds written by the insurer under the laws of this state to indemnify against pecuniary loss by breach of a building or construction contract. Owners, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen shall be deemed to be insureds or beneficiaries for the purposes of this section. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Warren E. Friedman - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Friedman may be contacted at wfriedman@pecklaw.com

    FEMA Offers to Review Hurricane Sandy Claims

    May 20, 2015 —
    According to NJ, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will be sending 141,800 letters to homeowners offering to review their Hurricane Sandy claims to see if the homeowners had been shortchanged. Homeowners who do not wish to wait for their letter can call 866-337-4262 or download a form online, reported NJ. If after the initial FEMA review the homeowner remains unsatisfied, he or she can request an additional review by an independent party. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Dismisses Cross Claims Against Utility Based on Construction Anti-Indemnity Statute

    August 14, 2018 —
    When a plane crashed and several passengers and crew died or were injured, their representatives sued several defendants, including a nearby plant owner, Milliken & Company (“Plant Owner”), based on claims that transmission lines on Plant Owner’s property were too close to the runways, were too high, and encroached on the airport easements. Plant Owner cross claimed against utility owner, Georgia Power Company (“Utility”). Plant Owner’s claim was based on an easement it granted to Utility, which required Utility to indemnify it for any claims arising out of Utility’s construction or maintenance of the transmission lines. In defense, Utility argued that the easement’s indemnity provision violated Georgia’s construction anti-indemnity statute. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com