BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architect
    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


    Nevada State Senator Says HOA Scandal Shows Need for Construction Defect Reform

    U.S. Housing Starts Exceed Estimates After a Stronger December

    Attorney Risks Disqualification If After Receiving Presumptively Privileged Communication Fails to Notify Privilege Holder and Uses Document Pending Privilege Determination by Court

    Receiving a $0 Verdict and Still Being Deemed the Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    Should CGL Insurer have Duty to Defend Insured During Chapter 558 Notice of Construction Defects Process???

    What Every Project Participant Needs to Know About Delay Claims

    Traub Lieberman Recognized in 2022 U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms”

    How I Prevailed on a Remote Jury Trial

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Motion for Remand

    Australians Back U.S. Renewables While Opportunities at Home Ebb

    Illinois Town Sues over Construction Defects at Police Station

    Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability

    Question of Parties' Intent Prevents Summary Judgment for Insurer

    California Court Broadly Interprets Insurance Policy’s “Liability Arising Out of” Language

    Georgia Local Government Drainage Liability: Nuisance and Trespass

    Texas “Loser Pays” Law May Benefit Construction Insurers

    Preserving your Rights to Secure Payment on Construction Projects (with Examples)

    Hunton Insurance Lawyer, Adriana Perez, Selected to the National Association of Women Lawyers’ 2023 Rising List

    Claim for Consequential Damages Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Intricacies of Business Interruption Claim Considered

    Can We Compel Insurers To Cover Construction Defect in General Liability Policies?

    Just Because You Label It A “Trade Secret” Does Not Make It A “Trade Secret”

    Insured's Commercial Property Policy Deemed Excess Over Unobtained Flood Policy

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at Faster Pace in January

    Former Superintendent Sentenced in Rhode Island Tainted Fill Case

    Haight Expands California Reach – Opens Office in Sacramento

    Jobsite Safety, Workforce Shortage Drive Innovation in Machine Automation

    Brooklyn’s Industry City to Get $1 Billion Modernization

    Rainwater Collecting on Rooftop is not Subject to Policy's Flood Sublimits

    California Posts Nation’s Largest Gain in Construction Jobs

    Can a Receiver Prime and Strip Liens Against Real Property?

    Insurer Awarded Summary Judgment on Collapse Claim

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/05/22) – Hurricane Ian, the Inflation Reduction Act, and European Real Estate

    When Employer’s Liability Coverage May Be Limited in New York

    You Cannot Arbitrate Claims Not Covered By The Arbitration Agreement

    Miller Act Statute of Limitations and Equitable Tolling

    Ex-Corps Worker Pleads Guilty to Bribery on Afghan Contract

    Moving Toward a Telework Future: A Checklist of Considerations for Employers

    Demonstrating A Fraudulent Inducement Claim Or Defense

    A Contractual Liability Exclusion Doesn't Preclude Insurer's Duty to Indemnify

    Job Gains a Positive for Housing

    United States Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements

    DOD Contractors Receive Reprieve on Implementation of Chinese Telecommunications Ban

    Watchdog Opens Cartel Probe Into Eight British Homebuilders

    President Trump Repeals Contractor “Blacklisting” Rule

    Tokyo Tackles Flood Control as Typhoons Swamp Subways

    Quick Note: Insurer Must Comply with Florida’s Claims Administration Act

    Questions of Fact Regarding Collapse of Basement Walls Prevent Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    Charles Eppolito Appointed Vice-Chair of the PBA Judicial Evaluation Commission and Receives Prestigious “President’s Award”

    Lewis Brisbois Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for Insurance Law, Mass Tort/Class Actions Defense, Labor & Employment Litigation, and Environmental Law in 2024 Best Law Firms®
    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

    Georgia State and Local Governments Receive Expanded Authority for Conservation Projects

    May 31, 2021 —
    In the 2020-2021 session, the Georgia General Assembly amended existing laws to expand state and local governments’ authority to enter conservation projects. In connection with these projects, the contractor guarantees that cost savings or revenue increases will cover any payments for the project. Read more about conservation projects, including Guaranteed Energy Savings Performance Contracts With regard to school systems, conservation projects had previously included facility alterations designed to reduce energy or water consumption or operation costs. But the new law expands the permitted projects to include equipment purchases used in new construction or building retrofit, addition, or renovation. It also adds training programs incidental to the contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Run Spot...Run!

    November 18, 2024 —
    "The 'classic' definition of spot zoning is 'the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners.’ Anderson’s American Law of Zoning, 4th Edition, § 5.12 (1995)” (from plannersweb.com). A wireless carrier rebuffed in Jennings, Louisiana, on an application to rezone residential property to site a monopole cell tower sought relief from the federal court for the Western District of Louisiana. The city lacked any wireless tower provisions in its ordinances, and the carrier asserted that existing “commercial property within the appropriate range” was unavailable. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

    August 17, 2011 —

    The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Miller v. Lankow that Mr. Miller was within his rights to remediate his home, even though doing so destroyed the evidence of water intrusion.

    Linda Lankow built a home in 1992. In 2001 or 2002, Lankow discovered a stucco problem at the garage which she attributed to moisture intrusion. She asked the original contractor to fix the wall. In 2003, Lankow attempted to sell her home, but the home inspection revealed fungal growth in the basement. Lankow made further repairs, including alterations to the landscaping.

    In 2004, Lankow put her house on the market once again and entered into an agreement with David Miller. Miller declined to have an independent inspection, as the home had been repaired by professional contractors.

    In 2005, Miller put the house on the market. A prospective buyer requested a moisture inspection. The inspection firm, Private Eye, Inc. found “significant moisture intrusion problems.”

    Miller hired an attorney who sent letters to the contractors and to Lankow and her husband. Lankow’s husband, Jim Betz, an attorney, represented his wife and sent a letter to Miller’s attorney that Miller had declined an opportunity to inspect the home.

    In 2007, Miller’s new attorney sent letters to all parties that Miller had decided to begin remediation work on the house. All stucco was removed. Miller then filed a lawsuit against the prior owners, the builders, and the realtors.

    Two of the contractors and the prior owners moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Miller had spoliated evidence by removing the stucco. They requested that Miller’s expert reports be excluded. The district court found for the defendants and imposed sanctions on Miller.

    The Minnesota Supreme court found that “a custodial party’s duty to preserve evidence is not boundless,” stating that “it may be particularly import to allow remediation in cases such as the one before us.” Their reasoning was that “remediation of the moisture intrusion problem in the home may be necessary, even essential, to address immediate health concerns.”

    Given that Miller needed to remediate the problem in order to continue living there, and that he had given the other parties a “full and fair opportunity to inspect,” the court found that he was within his rights. The court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded it to them for review.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Who is a “Contractor” as Used in “Unlicensed Contractor”?

    June 08, 2020 —
    A recent Georgia Court of Appeals case established a rule concerning the effect of an unlicensed contractor failing to disclose that he is unlicensed. In Fleetwood v. Lucas,[1] the contractor was hired by the homeowners to perform renovations on two homes. One of the projects went over budget, and the homeowners failed to pay the remaining balances on both projects. Following their failure to pay, the contractor sued the homeowners for breach of contract, and the jury delivered a verdict in his favor. The homeowners appealed on the grounds that the contractor was barred from bringing suit because the contractor did not have a license to perform the work. Generally, if a contractor does not have a residential or general contractor’s license but performs work when a license is required, the contract is unenforceable. O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17(b). However, under O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17(g), a contractor may perform repair work without a license if the contractor discloses that he does not have a license, and the work does not affect the structural integrity of the project. In this case, the contractor failed to disclose that he did not have a license. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Taylor Orgeron, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Orgeron may be contacted at orgeron@ahclaw.com

    No Coverage for Property Damage That is Limited to Work Completed by Subcontractor

    April 25, 2012 —

    The issue before the 11th Circuit was whether, under Florida law, a general contractor had coverage for a property damage claim limited to the defective work performed by a subcontractor, and not affecting any other portion of the project. The court found no coverage in Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Auchter Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5412 (11th Cir. March 15, 2012).

    Amelia Island Company contracted with Auchter Company, a general contractor, for construction of an inn and conference room. Auchter subcontracted with Register Contracting Company to install the Inn’s roof. Pursuant to the Florida Building Code, installation of the roof required that it be able to withstand 110 m.p.h. winds.

    Register completed installing the roof tiles in January 1998. Beginning in 2002, the tiles began dislodging from the roof. During the 2004 hurricane season, three hurricanes caused more tiles to come off the roof. Some of these tiles hit other tiles, cracking them.

    In 2006, the parties went to arbitration over the costs of repairs for the roof.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Congratulations 2019 DE, NJ and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    May 26, 2019 —

    Fifteen White and Williams lawyers have been named by Super Lawyers as a Delaware, New Jersey or Pennsylvania "Super Lawyer" while eight received "Rising Star" designations. Each lawyer who received the distinction competed in a rigorous selection process which took into consideration peer recognition and professional achievement. The lawyers named to this year's Super Lawyer list represent a multitude of practices throughout the firm.

    Super Lawyers 2019
    AttorneyPractice Area
    John Balaguer PI Defense: Med Mal
    Kevin Cottone PI Defense: Med Mal
    Thomas Goutman Class Action
    David Haase Business Litigation
    Christopher Leise Civil Litigation: Defense
    Randy Maniloff Insurance Coverage
    David Marion Business Litigation
    Peter Mooney Business Litigation
    Michael Olsan Insurance Coverage
    John Orlando General Litigation
    Wesley Payne Insurance Coverage
    Daryn Rush Insurance Coverage
    Anthony Salvino Workers’ Comp
    Patricia Santelle Insurance Coverage
    Andrew Susko Civil Litigation: Defense
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That’s Not the Most Interesting Part

    November 01, 2022 —
    While construction projects can get messy, they don’t get much messier than the next case, which, while involving a fairly limited legal issue, has such jaw dropping facts it’s worth a read if only to make you feel a bit better about your own project. The Clark Bros. Case In Clark Bros, Inc. v. North Edwards Water District, 77 Cal.App.5th 801 (2022), general contractor Clark Bros., Inc. was awarded over $3 million in damages against a local water district on a water treatment facility project. The Project The North Edwards Water District serves approximately 220 customers in the Mojave Desert. It has one employee, Dollie Dimples Kostopoulos. Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up. The drinking water it provides to its customers contains three times the legal limit of arsenic, a carcinogen. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Courts Will Not Second-Guess Public Entities When it Comes to Design Immunity

    May 13, 2024 —
    It was a bizarre confluence of events. Jorgen Stufkosky was driving on SR-154 in Santa Ynez, California. Martha Aguayo was driving on the same highway ahead of Stufkosky when she struck a deer causing it to fly across the centerline into traffic from the opposite direction. The deer struck a SUV causing its driver to lose control. The driver of the SUV crossed the same centerline where he collided head on with Stufkosky, killing him. Stufkosky’s children later sued the California Department of Transportation in the case Stufkosky v. California Department of Transportation, 97 Cal.App.5th 492 (2023), alleging that their father’s death was due to Caltrans’ negligent design of SR-153, inadequate number of deer crossing signs, and its high posted speed limit. While in the trial court, Caltrans filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Caltrans was immune from liability under Government Code section 830.6, the so called “design immunity” statute. The trial court agreed and the Stufloskys appealed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com