BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness construction
    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


    Quick Note: Insurer’s Denial of Coverage Waives Right to Enforce Post-Loss Policy Conditions

    No Coverage For Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

    Cal/OSHA-Approved Changes to ETS Will Take Effect May 6, 2022

    Ambiguity in Insurance Policy will be Interpreted in Favor of Insurance Coverage

    Hawaii Federal District Court Rejects Bad Faith Claim

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives “Tier 1” Ranking by U.S. News and World Reports

    Toward Increased Citizen Engagement in Urban Planning

    Few Homes Available to Reno Buyers, Plenty of Commercial Properties

    When is Mediation Appropriate for Your Construction Case?

    Housing to Top Capital Spending in Next U.S. Growth Leg: Economy

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

    Actual Cost Value Includes Depreciation of Repair Labor Costs

    Court’s Ruling on SB800 “Surprising to Some”

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Fifteen White and Williams Lawyers

    Virtual Jury Trials of Construction Disputes: The Necessary Union of Both Sides of the Brain

    The Contract Disputes Act: What Every Federal Government Contractor Should Know

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Allegations of Collapse Rejected

    Colorado Federal Court Confirms Consequetial Property Damage, But Finds No Coverage for Subcontractor

    Standard Lifetime Shingle Warranties Aren’t Forever

    Contract Change #9: Owner’s Right to Carry Out the Work (law note)

    Hawaii Supreme Court Reaffirms an "Accident" Includes Reckless Conduct, Finds Green House Gases are Pollutants

    Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

    Emerging World Needs $1.5 Trillion for Green Buildings, IFC Says

    Insurer's Attempt to Strike Experts in Collapse Case Fails

    Pennsylvania Homeowner Blames Cracks on Chipolte Construction

    High-Rise Condominium Construction Design Defects, A Maryland Construction Lawyer’s Perspective

    Dispute Over Exhaustion of Primary Policy

    Sacramento Army Corps District Projects Get $2.1 Billion in Supplemental Appropriation

    What Do I Do With This Stuff? Dealing With Abandoned Property After Foreclosure

    Ninth Circuit Holds that 1993 Budget Appropriations Language Does Not Compel the Corps of Engineers to use 1987 Wetlands Guidance Indefinitely

    Allegations That COVID-19 Was Physically Present and Altered Property are Sufficient to Sustain COVID-19 Business Interruption Suit

    Building and Landscape Standards Enacted in Response to the Governor's Mandatory Water Restrictions Dealing with the Drought and Possible Effects of El Niño

    Settlement between IOSHA and Mid-America Reached after Stage Collapse Fatalities

    Economist Predicts Housing Starts to Rise in 2014

    Construction Defects Survey Results Show that Warranty Laws Should be Strengthened for Homeowners & Condominium Associations

    California Case Is a Reminder That Not All Insurance Policies Are Alike Regarding COVID-19 Losses

    School District Settles Over Defective Athletic Field

    What Should Be in Every Construction Agreement

    If You Can’t Dazzle Em’ With Brilliance, Baffle Em’ With BS: Apprentices on Public Works Projects

    Court Throws Wet Blanket On Prime Contractor's Attorneys' Fees Request In Prompt Payment Case

    New York Appellate Division: Second Department Contradicts First Department, Denying Insurer's Recoupment of Defense Costs for Uncovered Claims

    Data Is Critical for the Future of Construction

    Federal Government May Go to Different Green Building Standard

    Construction Defect Fund Approved for Bankrupt Las Vegas Builder

    Hunton Insurance Coverage Group Ranked in National Tier 1 by US News & World Report

    New Notary Language For Mechanics Lien Releases and Stop Payment Notice Releases

    Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

    Improper Classification Under Davis Bacon Can Be Costly

    Flood Policy Does Not Cover Debris Removal from Property
    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

    Hawaii Federal District Court Again Rejects Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    January 13, 2017 —
    The federal district court for the District of Hawaii continued its longstanding pattern of finding no coverage for claims based upon construction defects. Am. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Haw. Nut & Bolt, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174243 (D. Haw. Dec. 16, 2016). Safeway filed a complaint against Hawaii Nut & Bolt (HNB). The complaint involved issues pertaining to the construction of the roof deck at a Safeway store. HNB was a subcontractor hired to supply a coating system on the roof of the store to make it waterproof. The product was manufactured by VersaFlex. After the store opened, there were water leaks from the roof. This disrupted business operations and caused damage to Safeway's business and reputation. HNB tendered the claims to its CGL carrier, Fireman's Fund Insurance Corporation (FFIC). FFIC defended the underlying lawsuit for six years under a reservation of rights. 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

    The Connecticut Appellate Court Decides That Construction Contractor Was Not Obligated To Continue Accelerated Schedule to Mitigate Its Damages Following Late Delivery of Materials by Supplier

    April 11, 2022 —
    In United Concrete Prods. v. NJR Constr., LLC, 207 Conn. App. 551, 263 A.3d 823 (2021), the Connecticut Appellate Court has issued a decision that should be of interest to the Connecticut construction industry and the construction bar. The lawsuit arose out of the late delivery of materials on a construction project, which is a frequent problem on construction projects. In United Concrete Products, the defendant general contractor, NJR Construction, LLC (“NJR”) was retained by the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation (“DOT”) to replace a bridge over the Hockanum River (“Project”). Id. at 555-58 (2021). The Prime Contract provided that NJR with an eight-week time-frame to perform the work, at which time the road would be closed to traffic. Id. The Prime Contract also provided for a bonus of $3,000 for each day the road was opened to traffic prior to the eight week deadline of August 8, 2016, and for liquidated damages of $3,000 for each day the road remained closed beyond the deadline. Id. NJR subsequently entered into a purchase order (“Subcontract”) with the plaintiff, United Concrete Products, Inc. (“United”), whereby United agreed to provide certain concrete components for the Project, including ten pre-stressed concrete beams. Id. The Subcontract required that United deliver the concrete beams by June 7, 2016, but, NJR did not actually schedule the delivery until June 29, 2016. Id. Nevertheless, even with that schedule NJR could have reopened the road by July 19, 2016, which would have allowed it to receive the full $60,000 incentive bonus. However, United did not deliver the concrete beams until July 26, 2016, which caused NJR to lose the incentive bonus, be assessed liquidated damages by the DOT, and to incur additional delay damages. Id. After deducting the amount of $179,500 in damages that it incurred due to United’s late delivery of the beams, NJR paid United the balance of $66,074.75. Id. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert M. Barrack, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
    Mr. Barrack may be contacted at rbarrack@grsm.com

    Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement

    October 21, 2015 —
    The court determined that Target was an additional insured under its supplier's policy and the insurer had a duty to indemnify Target after it settled the underlying suit. Selective Ins. Co. v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123230 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2015). Angela Brown sued Target when she was allegedly injured by a door to a fitting room that came unhinged and fell on her head. Harbor Industries, Inc. supplied Target with its fitting rooms. Pursuant to the "Supplier Qualification Agreement" (SQA), Harbor named Target as an additional insured under its policy with Selective Insurance Company. The SQA became effective and was to remain in effect until terminated by either party. A second agreement, the "Program Agreement," set forth the terms under which Harbor sold the fitting rooms to Target. The Program Agreement went into effect on April 23, 2009, and expired on July 1, 2010. Brown's injury occurred on December 17, 2011, while the SQA and the policy were in effect, but after the Program Agreement expired. After Brown's injury, Target tendered to Selective, who denied coverage, contending Target was not an additional insured. The policy's endorsement expanded insureds to any additional insured whom Harbor agreed in a written contract to add as an additional insured. Selective filed suit and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 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

    Judgment for Insured Upheld After Insurer Rejects Claim for Hurricane Damage

    April 15, 2015 —
    The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's judgment as modified against Lloyds for improperly denying a claim for damage caused by Hurricane Ike. Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 1573 (Tex. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2015). Lewis sued Lloyds, alleging that, although her home and personal property were seriously damaged by Hurricane Ike, her claim was denied. At trial, Lloyds testified that the damage to Lewis' home had been previously caused by Hurricane Rita and Lloyds had already paid for repair of the roof. Nevertheless, Lewis had not used the payment for roof repairs. Lewis admitted that she used some of the payment after Hurricane Rita to purchase a generator and for evacuation expenses, but the majority of the payment was used for roof repairs. Lewis' expert engineer testified that the damage to Lewis' home was caused by wind and water intrusion through a hole caused by a tree limb that fell during Hurricane Ike. The expert further opined that the cost to mitigate the damage to the home and bring it up to livable standard was $156,155. Further, the home was a constructive total loss. 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

    Fundamental Fairness Trumps Contract Language

    September 24, 2014 —
    The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that a “no-damages-for-delay” clause would not be enforced where the delay was caused by the owner. The court’s ruling flies squarely in the face of the contract language that attempted to insulate the owner from any delay claims, even those it caused. In the case of Zachary Construction v. Port of Houston underlying contract, proposed by the Port of Houston, was heavy handed, to say the least. The contract provided: “[Contractor] shall receive no financial compensation for delay or hindrance to the Work. In no event shall the Port Authority be liable to [Contractor] … for any damages arising out of or associated with any delay or hindrance to the Work, regardless of the source of the delay or hindrance, including events of Force Majeure, AND EVEN IF SUCH DELAY OR HINDRANCE RESULTS FROM, ARISES OUT OF OR IS DUE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, TO THE NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR OTHER FAULT OF THE PORT AUTHORITY. [Contractor’s] sole remedy in any such case shall be an extension of time.” Wow, that’s some one-sided language. If the contract was enforced, the contractor could not get any damages for delay, even those damages caused by the active interference of the Port of Houston. 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

    Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract is Only as Good as Those Signing It

    December 17, 2024 —
    Here at Construction Law Musings, we beat the constant drum that “the contract is king” and “draft a good and well-worded construction contract” consistently. As a Virginia construction attorney, I stand by these statements and fully endorse a well-written construction contract. Such a contract will set expectations and provide the rules for your deal (particularly in the commercial context). Without this solid foundation (yes, I see the potential construction pun), when there are issues on the job site, there will be no baseline for how to resolve those issues. That said, I am also reminded on an almost daily basis that humans interact with these contracts. People negotiate the contracts and are the main forces that drive the success (or failure) of the construction project. Money is involved (often a lot of it) and there can at times be temptations to try and squeeze one last dollar out of the job despite what the contract says. Even the strongest contract cannot act as real-time protection against one party that refuses to comply with the contract and its performance or payment terms. 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

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    April 15, 2024 —
    If a tenant defaults under a commercial lease, Arizona law permits the landlord to re-take possession of the premises by locking out the defaulting tenant. However, if the landlord’s lockout is wrongful, the landlord may be liable for the damages the tenant sustains because of the wrongful lockout. To minimize such liability, here are some general best practices to follow when locking out a defaulting tenant:
    • Do Not Breach the Peace. It is vital when performing a lockout to not breach the peace. What constitutes a “breach of the peace” depends on the particular circumstances at hand. For example, if a tenant arrives during the lockout and becomes angry or threatens violence, the landlord should stop performing the lockout and return at a later time. As a general rule of thumb, it is best to perform lockouts in the early morning hours or in the late evening hours when the landlord is less likely to encounter the tenant.
    • Provide A Notice of Default. Many commercial leases require the landlord to provide a notice of default before the landlord can lock out a defaulting tenant. Check, double check, and triple check that the landlord followed the lease’s notice of default provisions correctly, including that the landlord sent the notices to all required parties in accordance with the time requirements set forth in the lease.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Tighe, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Tighe may be contacted at ptighe@swlaw.com

    The Greenest U.S. Cities & States

    August 13, 2014 —
    ECOBUILDING Pulse discussed the results of the 2014 U.S. Clean Tech Leadership Index, which “tracks clean tech progress by state, and in the 50 largest metro areas.” The top three states with the highest Clean Tech Index score were California, Massachusetts, and Oregon. Out of the top 10 cities, 5 were located in California. The top three cities with the highest score were San Francisco, San Jose, and San Diego. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of