BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering 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


    History and Gentrification Clash in a Gilded Age Resort

    Construction Defect or Just Punch List?

    Attorney Writing Series on Misconceptions over Construction Defects

    Crews Tested By Rocky Ground, Utility Challenges

    Delays Caused When Government (Owner) Pushes Contractor’s Work Into Rainy / Adverse Weather Season

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twelve White and Williams Lawyers

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Builder’s Risk Indeed”

    Insurer Waives Objection to Appraiser's Partiality by Waiting Until Appraisal Issued

    Homebuilding in Las Vegas Slows but Doesn’t Fall

    Meritage Acquires Legendary Communities

    New York Office Secures Appellate Win in Labor Law 240(1) Fall in Basement Accident Case

    Dispute Over Exhaustion of Primary Policy

    Hunton Andrews Kurth Associate Cary D. Steklof Selected to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite Up & Comers List for 2019

    Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete

    Wall Street Journal Analyzes the Housing Market Direction

    Seattle Condos, Close to Waterfront, Construction Defects Included

    The Air in There: Offices, and Issues, That Seem to Make Us Stupid

    Musk Says ‘Chicago Express’ Tunnel Project Could Start Work in Months

    Coverage Article - To Settle or Not To Settle?

    Blackstone Suffers Court Setback in Irish Real Estate Drama

    County Elects Not to Sue Over Construction Defect Claims

    Prompt Payment More Likely on Residential Construction Jobs Than Commercial or Public Jobs

    Balfour Taps Qinetiq’s Quinn as new CEO to Revamp Builder

    Collapse Claim Fails Due To Defectively Designed Roof and Deck

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

    Elizabeth Lofts Condo Owners Settle with Plumbing Supplier

    The Biggest Trials Coming to Courts Around the World in 2021

    EEOC Suit Alleges Site Managers Bullied Black Workers on NY Project

    Novation Agreements Under Federal Contracts

    Maybe Supervising Qualifies as Labor After All

    Fla. Researchers Probe 'Mother of All Sinkholes'

    HHMR Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers

    Don’t Waive Your Right to Arbitrate (Unless You Want To!)

    Ordinary Use of Term In Insurance Policy Prevailed

    Spotting Problem Projects

    CA Supreme Court Rejects Proposed Exceptions to Interim Adverse Judgment Rule Defense to Malicious Prosecution Action

    New Spending Measure Has Big Potential Infrastructure Boost

    Formal Request for Time Extension Not Always Required to Support Constructive Acceleration

    Three-Year Delay Not “Prompt Notice,” But Insurer Not “Appreciably Prejudiced” Either, New Jersey Court Holds

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Water Damage Claims

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Illinois Town Sues over Construction Defects at Police Station

    Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement

    Large Canada Employers and Jobsites Mandate COVID-19 Vaccines

    French President Vows to Rebuild Fire-Collapsed Notre Dame Roof and Iconic Spire

    The Colorado Supreme Court affirms Woodbridge II’s “Adverse Use” Distinction

    Update Regarding New York City’s Climate Mobilization Act (CMA) and the Reduction of Carbon Emissions in New York City

    Federal Court Holds That Other Insurance Analysis Is Unnecessary If Policies Cover Different Risks

    Overview of New Mexico Construction Law

    Lasso Needed to Complete Vegas Hotel Implosion
    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

    Ten ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    August 30, 2021 —
    ACS is very honored and pleased to announce ten members of our firm were awarded the distinction of top attorneys in Washington. Our blog articles usually cover Construction Legal News, but we feel this is a newsworthy accolade to be shared with friends and clients. To become candidates to receiving the Super Lawyer nomination, lawyers are nominated by a peer or identified by research. After completing this first step in the process, Super Lawyer’s research department analyzes 12 indicators, such as experience, honors/awards, verdicts/settlements, and others. As for the third step, there is a peer evaluation by practice area. Finally, for step four, candidates are grouped into four firm-size categories. In other words, solo and small firm lawyers are compared only with other solo and small firm lawyers, and large firm lawyers are compared with other large firm lawyers. The process is very selective and only 5 percent of the total lawyers in Washington are nominated as Super Lawyers. John P. Ahlers, one of the firm’s founding partners, was recognized as the third Top Lawyer out of all Washington lawyers in the State. Named partner Scott R. Sleight and partner Brett M. Hill were both recognized as one of the 100-Best Lawyers in the State. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Cameron Sheldon, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Sheldon may be contacted at cameron.sheldon@acslawyers.com

    Lumber Liquidators’ Home-Testing Methods Get EPA Scrutiny

    June 10, 2015 —
    The home testing method Lumber Liquidators Holdings Inc. is using to reassure customers that their floors are safe is being questioned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In response to allegations that its Chinese-made laminate flooring emitted excessive levels of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, Lumber Liquidators sent thousands of do-it-yourself tests to people who’d purchased the products. Customers use a device in the kit to measure the air in their homes for 24 hours, then send the package back to have the results evaluated. While the EPA didn’t take a position on the specifics of Lumber Liquidators’ test program, the agency said on its website that home air testing “may not provide useful information due to the uncertainties” of the method. Air tests don’t pinpoint the specific source of a contaminant, and there are no widely accepted standards for indoor formaldehyde levels, the agency said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Townsend, Bloomberg

    Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

    November 14, 2018 —
    The “failure to cooperate” defense is a defense an insurer may raise when its insured fails to cooperate with it in the defense of the claim against the insured. If an insurer takes this position, it will typically be denying both defense and indemnification obligations, meaning the insured could be forfeiting coverage that otherwise exists through his/her/its failure to cooperate with the insurer. This defense by the insurer is not absolute as recently explained by the Fourth District in Barthelemy v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D2379a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) discussing the elements of this failure to cooperate defense. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Federal Judge Refuses to Limit Coverage and Moves Forward with Policyholder’s Claims Against Insurer and Broker

    December 07, 2020 —
    On November 10, 2020, a New York federal judge dismissed an insurer’s counterclaims seeking to cap its exposure under a $15 million sublimit and an order estopping the policyholder from pursuing any additional amounts. In February 2017, Plaintiff Pilkington North America, Inc. (Pilkington), suffered between $60 and $100 million in damage from a tornado that struck its glass manufacturing factory in Illinois. Pilkington sought coverage for its loss under a commercial property and business interruption policy issued by Defendant Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company (MSI). Pilkington also claimed its insurance broker, Aon Risk Services Central, Inc. (Aon), is liable for faulty advice provided while brokering the policy. Aon’s negligence allegedly gave way to MSI’s fraudulent revision of the insurance policy, which caused the losses from the tornado to not be fully compensable. Pilkington’s fraud and faulty brokering claims stem from MSI’s revision of an endorsement contained in the policy. The revision changed the wording of a windstorm sublimit. Allegedly, Aon was informed by MSI of the changes and failed to inform Pilkington that the revision would substantially reduce coverage for windstorms, including tornados. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
    Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

    Suffolk Pauses $1.5B Boston Tower Project for Safety Audit After Fire

    April 22, 2024 —
    The team building the $1.5-billion, 51-story South Station Tower in Boston voluntarily shut down the jobsite April 9 for a safety stand down and audit after a small fire broke out, according to contractor Suffolk Construction. No one was injured. 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

    Highest Building Levels in Six Years in Southeast Michigan

    December 11, 2013 —
    Macomb Township in southeast Michigan has had $122 million in new development in 2013, all of which helped the region reach its highest building levels since 2007. The wider area saw 398 permits issued for single-family homes in the last twelve months, fifty-two more than in the twelve months prior. “The improvement is economically driven,” said Michael Stoskofa, the CEO of the Home Builders Association of Southeast Michigan. As employment improves in the area, “more people are willing and able to purchase a home,” he said. Home inventory in the area is also at a record low. As a result, projects that were put on hold in 2008 are active again. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Appellate Court Holds Insurers May Suffer Consequences of Delayed Payment of Energy Company Property and Business Interruption Claims

    March 16, 2020 —
    A New York appellate court recently held that renewable bio-diesel fuel manufacturer BioEnergy Development Group LLC may pursue tens of millions of dollars in damages from its insurers under two all-risk insurance policies, including amounts in excess of the policy limits, where the insurers refused to pay claims in a timely manner. BioEnergy purchased two all-risk property policies from Lloyd’s to provide coverage for its manufacturing plant in Memphis, Tennessee. A fire destroyed the Memphis plant in March 2016, eliminating BioEnergy’s production capacity and sole source of revenue. BioEnergy made claims under the policies and sought to rebuild its plant. The insurers acknowledged coverage and eventually made approximately $8 million in interim payments, but the parties disagreed over the value of the total property damage claim, which BioEnergy contended was in excess of $24 million. The disputed claim was submitted to appraisal, which resulted in the insurers agreeing to pay the full business interruption limit of $15.1 million. The insurers filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit, however, seeking to limit BioEnergy’s recovery to the policy limits of $15.1 million. BioEnergy alleged that the insurers failed to make interim payments in a timely manner after the fire and, as a result, the company suffered increased losses because it could not rebuild without the insurance proceeds. BioEnergy sought actual and consequential damages, plus attorneys’ fees, arising from the delayed payments, including payment of its business interruption losses in excess of the policy limits. Reprinted courtesy of Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at sahmad@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Recent Statutory Changes Cap Retainage on Applicable Construction Projects

    March 11, 2024 —
    Recent reforms to certain state retainage laws have reduced the lawful amount of withholding permitted on construction projects. In theory, retainage allows an owner to mitigate the risk of incomplete or defective work by withholding a certain portion of payment until the construction project is substantially complete. Recent statutory developments in Washington, New York, and Georgia represent significant changes in how much an owner may retain on applicable construction projects in those jurisdictions. The details of each state’s retainage laws vary in many important respects. Most states set caps at 5% or 10%, with important variations depending on the type of project and the amount of progress completed. Some states require retainage to be held in an escrow account, but most do not. Many federal construction projects allow up to 10% retainage, while other federal agencies do not require any retention. See 48 CFR § 52.232-5(e) - Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts. The ongoing motivation for retainage reform is typically framed in terms of reducing delays in getting payment to subcontractors who complete their scope of work on time and free from defects. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McKnight, Fox Rothschild LLP
    Mr. McKnight may be contacted at pmcknight@foxrothschild.com