BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure 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


    Nine Gibbs Giden Partners Listed in Southern California Super Lawyers 2022

    Unlocking the Potential of AI and Chat GBT in Construction Management

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Climate Change Lawsuit Barred by “Pollution Exclusion”

    SFAA Commends U.S. Senate for Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Stop - In the Name of the Law!”

    Traub Lieberman Partner Michael Logan and Associate Christian Romaguera Obtain Voluntary Dismissal in Favor of Construction Company Under the Vertical Immunity Doctrine

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    The Burden of Betterment

    Lien Law Unlikely To Change — Yet

    Protecting and Perfecting Your Mechanics Lien when the Property Owner Files Bankruptcy

    Arizona Contractor Designs Water-Repellant Cabinets

    Home Buyer Disclosures, What’s Required and What Isn’t

    Pile Test Likely for Settling Millennium Tower

    BWB&O’s Los Angeles Office Obtains Major Victory in Arbitration!

    If I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable?

    To Require Arbitration or Not To Require Arbitration

    Unpredictable Power Surges Threaten US Grid — And Your Home

    Cooperation and Collaboration With Government May Be on the Horizon

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim

    He Turned Wall Street Offices Into Homes. Now He Vows to Remake New York

    The Dangers of an Unlicensed Contractor from Every Angle

    A New Perspective on Mapping Construction Sites with the Crane Camera System

    A New Way to Design in 3D – Interview with Pouria Kay of Grib

    Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    Genuine Dispute Over Cause of Damage and Insureds’ Demolition Before Inspection Negate Bad Faith and Elder Abuse Claims

    Insurers' Motion to Determine Lack of Occurrence Fails

    Blackstone Said in $1.7 Billion Deal to Buy Apartments

    Home Buyers will Pay More for Solar

    The New Jersey Theme Park Where Kids’ Backhoe Dreams Come True

    Coverage for Named Windstorm Removed by Insured, Terminating Such Coverage

    Sixth Circuit Affirms Liability Insurer's Broad Duty to Defend and Binds Insurer to Judgment Against Landlord

    Lawsuits over Roof Dropped

    Commercial Construction in the Golden State is Looking Pretty Golden

    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP Attorneys to Speak at the 2016 National Construction Claims Conference

    Indemnitor Owes Indemnity Even Where Indemnitee is Actively Negligent, California Court Holds

    Washington High Court Holds Insurers Bound by Representations in Agent’s Certificates of Insurance

    Sub-Limit Restricts Insured's Flood Damage Recovery

    LA Lakers Partially Survive Motion to Dismiss COVID-19 Claims

    Putting 3D First, a Model Bridge Rises in Norway

    A Survey of New Texas Environmental Laws

    William Lyon to Acquire RSI Communities

    When Must a New York Insurer Turn Over a Copy of the Policy?

    Coyness is Nice. Just Not When Seeking a Default Judgment

    National Engineering and Public Works Roadshow Highlights Low Battery Seawall Restoration Project in Charleston

    Structural Problems May Cause Year-Long Delay Opening New Orleans School

    Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

    Delaware Supreme Court Won’t Halt Building

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Honors Four Partners as ‘Lawyers of the Year’

    Hawaii Federal District Court Again Rejects Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    5 Ways Equipment Financing is Empowering Small Construction Businesses
    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. Leveraging 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

    Taking the Stairs to Human Wellness and Greener Buildings

    June 22, 2016 —
    If taking the stairs catches on, buildings with elevators could automatically get greener. The people working in them also stand a good chance of getting healthier. However, designers and builders working for owners who want to reap these advantages, will need to learn a few new tricks when it comes to how stairs get placed and promoted. They also get a chance to unleash creativity in how they are finished. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rob Finch, Construction Informer Blog

    Another Reminder to ALWAYS Show up for Court

    July 20, 2020 —
    I have discussed the need to always respond to a lawsuit on multiple occasions here at Construction Law Musings. However, I keep reading cases where the defendant fails to appear either by pleading or in person. Such action is never a good idea as demonstrated once again in the case of Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. Precision Constr. & Mgmt. Group, LLC, a case out of the Eastern District of Virginia. The basic facts are not a surprise and are taken from the magistrates report that was adopted by the District Court. Balfour Beatty and Precision entered into a subcontract for some electrical work at a project located in Loudoun County. The subcontract included an attorney fees provision and provided for liquidated damages for late performance and the typical damages for default. The project began in July of 2016 with substantial completion July 5, 2018. Precision failed to supply sufficient manpower and sent a letter to Precision stating the same. After an agreement between the parties regarding supplementation by Balfour Beatty and to the accompanying back charge, Balfour Beatty informed Precision by letter that it would be liable for any liquidated damages. The Owner began assessing liquidated damages and Balfour Beatty subsequently terminated the subcontract and discovered defective work by Precision. 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

    Quick Note: Expert Testimony – Back to the Frye Test in Florida

    December 19, 2018 —
    Expert testimony (opinions) – very important testimony in construction disputes. Whether it is a delay claim, an inefficiency claim, a defect claim, etc., expert testimony plays an invaluable role in construction disputes. Construction attorneys work closely with expert witnesses to ensure that an expert helps render an opinion to support their client’s burden of proof (including damages) or an affirmative 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

    Ninth Circuit Rules Supreme Court’s Two-Part Test of Implied Certification under the False Claims Act Mandatory

    May 13, 2019 —
    For those contractors in the government arena, read on. The False Claims Act (“FCA”) was enacted to deter knowingly fraudulent actions by contractors which resulted in a loss of property to the Government. Intent to defraud with resulting financial hardship was required. Contrary to popular misconception, the statute was not designed to punish all false submissions to the Government simply because those submissions, or claims, are later found to be false. The statute’s inclusion of the requisite element of knowledge is consistent with this notion:
    1. A defendant must submit a claim for payment to the Government;
    2. the claim must be false or fraudulent;
    3. the defendant must have known the claim was fraudulent when it was submitted (also known as scienter); and
    4. the claim must have caused the Government to pay out money.
    See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). Despite these explicit elements (in addition to common law elements of fraud), over the last two decades, contractors have seen ever-expanding theories of FCA recovery presented by qui tam plaintiffs and the Government. For example, under the FCA, the false “claim” evolved over time: the claim no longer needs to be an express false claim (i.e. the truthfulness of the claim is a direct condition of payment); the claim can be “implied” misrepresentation or “half-truth”. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Meredith Thielbahr, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Ms. Thielbahr may be contacted at mthielbahr@grsm.com

    Finalists in San Diego’s Moving Parklet Design Competition Announced

    September 03, 2014 —
    The city of San Diego together with the Downtown San Diego Partnership sponsored the Moving Parklet Design competition, and the winning design will be built and “used in public areas and legally permitted parking spaces throughout downtown San Diego to add a new and unique gathering space for the community,” according to the San Diego Source. A mobile parklet “is a small, innovative park that can move from location to location.” The winning team is chosen by facebook voters and will receive $5,000. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Know Whether Your Course of Business Operations Are Covered Or Excluded By Your Insurance

    December 27, 2021 —
    It is a good idea to know what your insurance covers and does not cover. This way, if your course of business has you performing a certain (risky) operation, you know whether that operation is covered or excluded under your policy. If you are not sure, discuss with your insurance broker — this is important. There is little value performing an operation that is NOT covered by your insurance policy, as you are now performing a risk that is not covered by insurance. If you know it is not covered by insurance you may elect to change your operations or see if there is insurance to cover the risk. Below is a case study of this occurrence dealing with a commercial automobile liability policy where an insured’s operations using a crane mounted to a super duty truck was not covered under their automobile liability policy. In People’s Trust Ins. Co. v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D262a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), homeowners hired a company to install a shed. The company hired another company to deliver and install the shed using a crane; the company used a crane mounted to a Ford F-750 super duty truck. This company improperly operated the crane resulting in the shed falling and damaging the homeowner’s roof. The homeowners submitted a claim to their property insurer and their property insurer subrogated to their rights and sued. The company operating the crane’s commercial automobile liability insurer denied coverage, and thus, denied the duty to defend. As a result, a Coblentz-type agreement was entered into where the company operating the crane consented to a judgment in favor of the property insurer (subrogee) and assigned its rights under its commercial automobile liability policy to the property insurer. The property insurer then sued the automobile liability carrier for coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the automobile liability insurer finding there was no coverage and this was affirmed on appeal. Why? Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    North Carolina Exclusion j(6) “That Particular Part”

    February 10, 2012 —

    In Alliance Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dove, 714 S.E.2d 782 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011), claimant Murphy-Brown hired insured Dove to repair a broken elevator belt in a grain elevator in Murphy-Brown’s feed mill. The elevator was inside a metal duct and, to access the broken belt, Dove had to cut out a section of the duct. After replacing the belt, Dove welded the metal section back to the duct. Immediately after Dove completed the welding, dust inside the duct ignited, causing an explosion in the elevator, resulting in property damage to the elevator and other property. Murphy-Brown sued Dove for negligence seeking damages for the repair and replacement of the elevator, repair and replacement of the other property, increased grain handling costs during the repairs, and loss of use.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

    Mexico Settles With Contractors for Canceled Airport Terminal

    August 26, 2019 —
    Mexico City's airport authority settled a dispute with builders on an 85 billion peso ($4.45 billion) contract for the terminal at a new Mexico City airport that President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador canceled a month before taking office. Grupo Aeroportuario Ciudad de la Mexico will pay 14.2 billion pesos, equivalent to 16.7% of the contract's total cost, to Constructora Terminal de Valle de Mexico, a consortium that includes Carlos Slim's Operadora Cicsa, the Communications and Transportation Ministry said in an emailed statement. The contracts represented 45% of the airport's total cost, the ministry said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric Martin, Bloomberg