BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete 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


    New FAR Rule Mandates the Use of PLAs on Large Construction Projects

    Supreme Court Holds Arbitrator can Fully Decide Threshold Arbitrability Issue

    Tropical Storms Pile Up Back-to-Back-to-Back Out West

    Shoring of Problem Girders at Salesforce Transit Center Taking Longer than Expected

    Green Construction Trends Contractors Can Expect in 2019

    BWB&O’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted in a Premises Liability Matter

    Chinese Demand Rush for Australia Homes to Stay, Ausin Says

    Rio Olympics Work Was a Mess and Then Something Curious Happened

    City Covered From Lawsuits Filed After Hurricane-Damaged Dwellings Demolished

    Warranty Reform Legislation for Condominiums – Unfair Practices used by Developers and Builders to avoid Warranty Responsibility for Construction Defects in Newly Constructed Condominiums

    Excess Carrier's Declaratory Judgment Action Stayed While Underlying Case Still Pending

    EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules

    Builder Exposes 7 Myths regarding Millennials and Housing

    Revamp to Nationwide Permits Impacting Oil and Gas Pipeline, Utility and Telecom Line Work

    NJ Court Reaffirms Rule Against Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims and Finds Fraud Claims Inherently Intentional

    Texas and Georgia Are Paying the Price for Sprawl

    Manhattan to Get Tall, Skinny Tower

    A Court-Side Seat: Appeals and Agency Developments at the Close of 2020

    Massachusetts Federal Court Holds No Coverage for Mold and Water Damage Claim

    Dynamics of Managing Professional Liability Claims for Design Builders

    Insurer Must Defend General Contractor

    Spearin Doctrine as an Affirmative Defense

    Solar and Wind Just Passed Another Big Turning Point

    Montana Court Finds Duty to Defend over Construction Defect Allegation

    Judgment Proof: Reducing Litigation Exposure with Litigation Risk Insurance

    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

    COVID-izing Your Construction Contract

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured In Northern California Super Lawyers 2021!

    Sixth Circuit Lifts Stay on OSHA’s COVID-19 Temporary Emergency Standards. Supreme Court to Review

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Win Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Favor of Insurer

    TV Kitchen Remodelers Sued for Shoddy Work

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    Congress to be Discussing Housing

    Replacing Coal Plants with Renewables Is Cheaper 80% of the Time

    White House Plan Would Break Up Corps Civil-Works Functions

    Tokyo's Skyline Set to See 45 New Skyscrapers by 2020 Olympics

    Bidder Be Thoughtful: The Impacts of Disclaimers in Pre-Bid Reports

    No Indemnity Coverage Where Insured Suffers No Loss

    Do Municipal Gas Bans Slow the Clean Hydrogen Transition in Real Estate?

    What to do When the Worst Happens: Responding to a Cybersecurity Breach

    The Godfather of Solar Predicts Its Future

    When Do Hard-Nosed Negotiations Become Coercion? Or, When Should You Feel Unlucky?

    Phoenix Flood Victims Can’t Catch a Break as Storm Nears

    Avoid Delay or Get Ready to Pay: The Risks of “Time-Is-of-The-Essence” Clauses

    ARUP, Rethinking Green Infrastructure

    Congratulations to our 2019 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    California Clarifies Its Inverse Condemnation Standard

    California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013

    Lost Rental Income not a Construction Defect

    What Makes Building Ventilation Good Enough to Withstand a Pandemic?
    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

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: Tenth Circuit Upholds the “Complaint Rule”

    May 12, 2016 —
    In Colorado, the “complaint rule” requires insurance carriers to provide a defense to its insured when the allegations contained in the complaint allege any set of facts that may fall within an insurance policy. Some insurers have pushed back on this rule arguing that it may cause an insurer to exercise its duty to defend although the underlying facts ultimately do not fall within the policy. In KF 103-CV, LLC v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, 2015 WL 6517782, the Tenth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals upheld the complaint rule. In its decision, the Tenth Circuit cited several Colorado state court rulings recognizing the courts’ intent to incentivize insurers to defend policies that may facially fall within the terms of the policy. Where there is uncertainty about coverage, the Tenth Circuit cited a Colorado Supreme Court case stating, “[t]he appropriate course of action for an insurer who believes that it is under no obligation to defend, is to provide a defense to the insured under the reservation of its rights.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Adria Robinson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Ms. Robinson may be contacted at robinson@hhmrlaw.com

    More Regulations for Federal Contractors

    October 08, 2014 —
    The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has been busy. In the last several weeks, the OFCCP has proposed regulations that will require contractors and subcontractors to provide summary compensation data and another rule prohibiting federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against employees or applicants who inquire about, discuss, or disclose their own compensation or the compensation of another employee or applicant. Equal Pay Report The OFCCP has proposed Summary Compensation regulations which would require federal contractors and subcontractors with more than 100 employees to “provide summary data on the compensation paid to employees by sex, race, ethnicity, specified job categories, and other relevant data points.” Covered employers would have to submit three types of information: 1. the total number of workers within a specific EEO-1 job category by race, ethnicity and sex; Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

    Business Risk Exclusion Dooms Coverage for Construction Defect Claim

    January 21, 2025 —
    The First Circuit, following Massachusetts law, found that coverage for allegations against the insured contractor for faulty workmanship were barred by the policy's (j) (6) Exclusion. Admiral Ins. Co. v. Tocci Bldg. Corp., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 28439 (1st Cir. Nov. 8, 2024). Tocci Building Corporation was the construction manager for an apartment project owned by Toll JM EB Residential Urban Renewal LLC (Toll). There were several work quality issues and delays on the project and Toll eventually terminated Tocci for alleged mismanagement of the project. Toll then filed a lawsuit against Tocci. The claims against Tocci included (1) damage to sheetrock resulting from faulty roof work; (2) mold formation resulting from inadequate sheathing and water getting into the building; and (3) damage to a concrete slab, wood framing, and underground pipes resulting from soil and settlement due to improperly backfill and soil compaction. 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

    Federal Court Holds that Demolition Exclusion Does Not Apply and Carrier Has Duty to Defend Additional Insureds

    September 02, 2024 —
    In the recent case of Travelers Indem. Co. v. Trisura Specialty Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101953 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2024), the court had occasion to consider the classic additional insured fact pattern of a construction accident. Travelers insured the general contractor and provided a defense to the general contractor as well as its wholly owned subsidiary. Trisura insured the subcontractor, who employed the injured worker. Travelers brought suit, alleging that Trisura is obligated to defend and indemnify the general contractor, its subsidiary, the owner of the building (The City of New York), and the tenant. Trisura denied any obligation to provide coverage due to the application of the “Demolition Exclusion” to the Trisura policy, which provides, in part, that there is no coverage for injury or damage arising out of the demolition of any building or structure which has original ground height in excess of three stories. The accident occurred during the interior demolition of the fifth floor of the building. The court held that the Demolition Exclusion applies only when there is a complete tearing down, razing, or destruction of an entire building. As the accident occurred during interior demolition, the exclusion did not apply. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

    Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure

    May 03, 2017 —
    In breaking news this week, LAW360.com posted that the Third Circuit ruled Friday that “a common exclusion found in a Travelers policy bars coverage for claims arising out of asbestos in any form, limiting insurers’ potential exposure to asbestos injury claims by precluding policyholders from arguing that the exclusionary language is ambiguous and doesn’t extend to products containing the carcinogen.” In its detailed analysis of the decision, LAW360 turned to Greg Podolak for his analysis. Gregory D. Podolak, managing partner of Saxe Doernberger & Vita PC’s Southeast office, said the ruling is a cautionary tale that should galvanize policyholders and their insurance brokers to take a closer look at policies to delete or curtail broad “arising out of” language in exclusions. Otherwise, insureds could find themselves without any coverage for claims even remotely related to a certain product, he said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com

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

    October 09, 2018 —
    On September 21, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided the case of Tin Cup, LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals (although all members concurred in the result) held that legislative language in a 1993 appropriations act does not require the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to continue to use its 1987 Clean Water Act (CWA) wetlands guidance beyond 1993. The Ninth Circuit noted that it approaches the interpretation of budget bills somewhat differently. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Breath of Fresh Air

    February 14, 2023 —
    For the first time since 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency updated and strengthened air quality standards. Construction sites are responsible for 14.5% of particulate matter in the air and 8% of total emissions in the United States. With that in mind, Construction Executive has spoken with Serene Al-Momen, Ph.D. and chief executive officer of Attune, in an exclusive interview. Al-Momen is an expert in air quality and offers her opinion on standards, consequences and the impact on the construction industry—which she has specific experience with due to Attune’s relationship with Clark Construction, a member of Associated Builders and Contractors. CONSTRUCTION EXECUTIVE: What is important about air quality standards in general? Serene Al-Momen: Air quality standards regulate the amount of pollution that's allowed to be emitted into the atmosphere. Reprinted courtesy of Rachel E. Pelovitz, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Senator Ray Scott Introduced a Bill to Reduce Colorado’s Statute of Repose for Construction Defect Actions to Four Years

    January 21, 2015 —
    For those of you reading this blog who are familiar with Colorado’s law as it pertains to construction defect actions, which I assume to be anyone reading this blog as it does not seem to get much random traffic, you are probably aware that the statute of repose applicable to construction defect actions in Colorado is generally thought of as being six plus two years. Specifically, C.R.S. § 13-80-104 states, in pertinent part:
    (1)(a) Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-102 after the claim for relief arises, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com