BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction claims 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


    Home Prices Up, Inventory Down

    House Panel Subpoenas VA Documents on Colorado Project

    The Ghosts of Baha Mar: How a $3.5 Billion Paradise Went Bust

    Housing Starts in U.S. Surge to Seven-Year High as Weather Warms

    The Pitfalls of Oral Agreements in the Construction Industry

    Top 10 Take-Aways from the 2024 Fall Forum Meeting in Pittsburgh

    4 Lessons Contractors Can Learn From The COVID-19 Crisis

    Ex-San Francisco DPW Director Sentenced to Seven Years in Corruption Case

    Colorado House Bill 20-1290 – Restriction on the Use of Failure to Cooperate Defense in First-Party Claims

    California’s Prompt Payment Laws: Just Because an Owner Has Changed Course Doesn’t Mean It’s Changed Course on Previous Payments

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    Changes and Extra Work – Is There a Limit?

    Negligent Inspection Claim Against Supervising Design Professional / Consultant

    Executing Documents with Powers of Attorney and Confessions of Judgment in PA Just Got Easier

    Drones, Googleplexes and Hyperloops

    Huh? Action on Construction Lien “Relates Back” Despite Notice of Contest of Lien

    Natural Disasters’ Impact on Construction in the United States

    Will Superusers Future-Proof the AEC Industry?

    Congress Relaxes Several PPP Loan Requirements

    Are Defense Costs In Addition to Policy Limits?

    Under the Hood of U.S. Construction Spending Is Revised Data

    Ahlers, Cressman & Sleight PLLC Ranked Top Washington Law Firm By Construction Executive

    Global Emissions From Buildings, Construction Climb to Record Levels

    Construction Defect Disputes: Know Your Measure of Damages!!!!!

    CGL Policy May Not Cover Cybersecurity and Data-Related Losses

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Recognized in “The Best Lawyers in America” & “Best Lawyers: One’s to Watch” 2024 Editions

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Indemnity Coverage For Damage Caused by Named Insured

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    Enforcement Of Contractual Terms (E.G., Flow-Down, Field Verification, Shop Drawing Approval, And No-Damage-For-Delay Provisions)

    Housing Starts Fall as U.S. Single-Family Projects Decline

    Tighter Requirements and a New Penalty for Owners of Vacant or Abandoned Storefronts in San Francisco

    Unjust Enrichment Claims When There Is No Binding Contract

    Modern Tools Are Key to Future-Proofing the Construction Industry

    CA Court of Appeal Reinstates Class Action Construction Defect Claims Against Homebuilder

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    Five Construction Payment Issues—and Solutions

    Illinois Court Assesses Factual Nature of Term “Reside” in Determining Duty to Defend

    What Does “Mold Resistant” Really Mean?

    Ninth Circuit Issues Pro-Contractor Licensing Ruling

    Be Careful with Good Faith Payments

    Wharf Holdings to Sell Entire Sino-Ocean Stake for $284 Million

    Mega-Consulate Ties U.S. to Convicted Billionaire in Nigeria

    Domtar Update

    A Third of U.S. Homebuyers Are Bidding Sight Unseen

    South Carolina’s New Insurance Data Security Act: Pebbles Before a Landslide?

    New Addition to the ASCE/SEI 7-22 Standard Protects Buildings from a 500-year Flood Event

    When is Forum Selection in a Construction Contract Enforceable?

    University of California Earthquake Report Provides List of Old Concrete Buildings in LA

    Temecula Office Secures Approval for Development of 972-Acre Community on Behalf of Pulte Homes

    The Small Stuff: Small Claims Court and Limited Civil Court Jurisdictional Limits
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Allegations of Actual Property Damage Necessary to Invoke Duty to Defend

    January 17, 2013 —

    The Fifth Circuit held that under Texas law, conclusory allegations of property damage in the underlying complaint did not trigger the insurer's duty to defend. PPI Tech. Serv., L.P. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24571 (5th Cir. Nov. 29, 2012).

    Royal Production Company was the lessor and operator of three leases for oil exploration. Royal retained the insured, PPI, as its agent to assist in well-planning and oversee the drilling of wells on the leases.

    A well was drilled on one of the three leased areas, but in resulted in a dry hole. It was later discovered that the well had been drilled on the wrong lease. Royal sued PPI for negligence, claiming that PPI caused the drilling rig to be towed to the wrong location, resulting in a dry hole and "property damage." 

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Save a Legal Fee: Prevent Costly Lawsuits With Claim Limitation Clauses

    April 25, 2012 —

    Ever had that lingering problem with a contracting partner that went away for awhile and then came back to bite you ? years later? In Washington, construction contract claims can be raised for up to six years after substantial completion. Six years!? Why would I want to wait that long to find out if I have a problem? You don’t have to.

    Over the past few years, I have discussed the notion of “contractual claim periods” on The Builders Counsel. For today’s Save a Legal Fee column, I cannot think of a better topic. These provisions are specifically intended to save you from unnecessary legal fees that might arise if a problem goes unnoticed for too long.

    Contractual claim periods are simply a way to reduce the amount of time that a contracting party has to raise a claim against its contracting partner. For example, a subcontractor might require that a general contractor raise any claim that it might have ? for defective or incomplete work, injury, damages, etc ? within a particular amount of time or forever lose the ability to raise the claim in a legal proceeding.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

    Arkansas: Avoiding the "Made Whole" Doctrine Through Dépeçage

    April 09, 2014 —
    In Arkansas, a workers’ compensation carrier’s subrogated recovery is subject to a determination of whether the injured worker—or, as the case may be, the worker’s surviving beneficiaries—has been “made whole” by the worker’s recovery against the third party tortfeasor. See, e.g., Yancey v. B & B Supply, 213 S.W.3d 657, 659 (Ark. App. 2005) (“An insured’s right to be made whole takes precedence over an insurer’s right to subrogation, and an insured must be fully compensated before the insurer's right to subrogation arises.”) [1] More often than not, a “made whole” determination will completely eradicate the carrier’s lien. But under the right circumstances, a workers’ compensation carrier may be able to avoid the harsh outcome of “made whole” by intervening in a pending third party action and subsequently filing a motion for dépeçage—i.e., the conflict of laws principle requiring the court to conduct a separate choice of law analysis for discrete issues in a given case. A motion for dépeçage, in this sense, would demand that the court conduct a choice of law analysis to determine what state’s workers’ compensation subrogation law will apply on reimbursing a carrier’s lien. We recently exploited this often underutilized tactic—to avoid Arkansas’ made whole doctrine—in a case involving a fatal plane crash in Louisiana. In that case, the deceased worker and his beneficiaries were residents of Louisiana; the accident took place in Louisiana; the worker was officially employed in Louisiana; and the workers’ compensation insurance policy was governed by, and benefits were paid under, Louisiana law. The only “contact” with Arkansas [2], meanwhile, was that Arkansas was the defendant’s domicile. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (04/26/23) – The Energy Transition and a Bit of Brick-and-Mortar Blues

    May 01, 2023 —
    In today’s roundup, Americans can buy homes with bitcoin, new tech aims to engineer a novel building material, federal investments boost the coastline (and construction sales), and more. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Detroit Showed What ‘Build Back Better’ Can Look Like

    May 10, 2021 —
    American cities stand at a precipice. Burdened by an overwhelming public health crisis, drained of resources by economic stagnation and torn apart by racial injustice and unrest, cities are confronting the reality that conventional formulas of municipal finance and practices of working cannot sustain our urban places. The significance of this moment was not lost on the Biden-Harris administration, which quickly advanced an ambitious mandate commensurate with the challenge: a domestic Marshall Plan called Build Back Better. Already, the first prong — the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan — has helped shore up city budgets, restore desperately needed funding for public transportation and keep businesses open and families in homes. The second leg, the $2 trillion American Jobs Plan, represents a bold shift from short-term recovery to long-term transformation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rip Rapson, Bloomberg

    No Coverage for Repairs Made Before Suit Filed

    August 22, 2022 —
    After a hurricane damaged the building the insured was constructing, there was no coverage under the CGL policy for repairs the insured made in the absence of a suit being filed. Planet Construction J2911 LLC. v. Gemini Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105468 (W.D. La. June 13, 2022). Planet Construction was a general contractor hired to build a fitness club. On August 27, 2020, Hurricane Laura struck the area. After the storm, a pipe in the sprinkler system broke, allegedly due to faulty materials and workmanship by a subcontractor, S&S Sprinkler. Planet Construction sought coverage under its policy with Gemini as well as under S&S's policy with Zurich. Both insurers denied coverage and Planet Construction filed suit. 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 Public Works Construction Collection Remedies: The Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    July 30, 2015 —
    Federal public work construction projects are unique in that there are no Stop Payment Notice or Mechanics Lien remedies available. Furthermore, although a remedy is available by proceeding against the original contractor’s payment bond under a federal law known as the “Miller Act” and its corresponding Federal Regulations (40 USCS 3131 et seq. and 48 CFR 28.101-1 et seq.), this remedy is not available to all subcontractors or suppliers. In addition, there are circumstances where a different form of security can be substituted for the payment bond (40 USCS 3131(b)(2)). Among those who generally cannot sue on the Miller Act Payment Bond are third-tier subcontractors and suppliers to suppliers. (See J.W. Bateson Company v. Board of Trustees, 434 U.S. 586 (1978)). As a general rule, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who deals directly with the prime contractor may bring a lawsuit against the bond company providing the Miller Act Payment Bond. Further, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who has a direct contractual relationship with a first tier subcontractor may bring such an action. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, The Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Florida Construction Defect Decision Part of Lengthy Evolution

    August 05, 2013 —
    Lawyers are still working out all the implications of Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in Maronda Homes. Three members of the firm Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed PA, Alexander Dobrev, Michael S. Provenzale, and Tara L. Tedrow on the firm’s web site. They characterize it as a “consumer-protection oriented decision,” quoting the court that the “house is the fondest dream and largest investment, both emotionally and financially, for Florida families.” The court found that Section 553.835 of the Florida laws could not be applied to construction that occurred before the statute become effective in July, 2012. They describe the underlying issue as “the culmination of forty years of evolution to the implied warranty of habitability that is granted by the builder of a new home to the purchaser.” This lead to a 2010 District Court decision that expanded the area covered from “merely the structure itself, along with improvements ‘immediately supporting the residence’” but also those “which provide ‘essential services’ which support the home, make it habitable, or are necessary for living accommodations.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of