BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut window 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


    Denver Court Rules that Condo Owners Must Follow Arbitration Agreement

    Ornate Las Vegas Palace Rented by Michael Jackson for Sale

    Condo Buyers Seek to Void Sale over Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Study Finds Construction Cranes Vulnerable to Hacking

    Be Careful with Mechanic’s Lien Waivers

    Georgia Appellate Court Supports County Claim Against Surety Company’s Failure to Pay

    Cold Stress Safety and Protection

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

    WCC and BHA Raised Thousands for Children’s Cancer Research at 25th West Coast Casualty CD Seminar

    Insurance Client Alert: Mere Mailing of Policy and Renewals Into California is Not Sufficient Basis for Jurisdiction Over Bad Faith Lawsuit

    Avoiding Disaster Due to Improper Licensing

    CGL Policies and the Professional Liabilities Exclusion

    Insured's Failure to Challenge Trial Court's Application of Exclusion Makes Appeal Futile

    COVID-19 Response: Executive Order 13999: Enhancement of COVID-19-Related Workplace Safety Requirements

    Sometimes you Need to Consider the Coblentz Agreement

    GRSM Team Wins Summary Judgment in Million-Dollar HOA Dispute

    That’s What I have Insurance For, Right?

    California Senator Proposes Bill to Require Contractors to Report Construction Defect Cases

    Project-Specific Commercial General Liability Insurance

    There Are Consequences to Executed Documents Such as the Accord and Satisfaction Defense

    Pennsylvania Sues Firms to Recoup Harrisburg Incinerator Losses

    Slip and Fall Claim from Standing Water in Parking Garage

    No Bond, No Recovery: WA Contractors Must Comply With WA Statutory Requirements Or Risk Being Barred From Recovery If Their Client Refuses To Pay

    EEOC Sues Whiting-Turner Over Black Worker Treatment at Tennessee Google Project

    Texas Supreme Court to Rehear Menchaca Bad Faith Case

    Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California

    U.S. Construction Value Flat at End of Summer

    What Is a Construction Defect in California?

    HOA Group Speaking Out Against Draft of Colorado’s Construction Defects Bill

    Staffing Company Not Entitled to Make a Claim Against a Payment Bond and Attorneys’ Fees on State Public Works Payment Bonds

    Competitive Bidding Statute: When it Applies and When it Does Not

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Builder’s Risk Indeed”

    Architect Plans to 3D-Print a Two-Story House

    The Brooklyn Condominium That’s Reinventing Outdoor Common Space

    The Future Looks Bright for Construction in 2015

    “License and Registration, Please.” The Big Risk of Getting Busted for Working without a Proper Contractor’s License

    The DOL Claims Most Independent Contractors Are Employees

    Non-compliance With Endorsement Means No Indemnity Coverage

    Insurer Must Defend General Contractor

    The Privilege Is All Mine: California Appellate Court Finds Law Firm Holds Attorney Work Product Privilege Applicable to Documents Created by Formerly Employed Attorney

    Pancakes Decision Survives Challenge Before Hawaii Appellate Court

    The Courts and Changing Views on Construction Defect Coverage

    Denver Parking Garage Roof Collapses Crushing Vehicles

    Vermont Supreme Court Finds COVID-19 May Damage Property

    Coverage, Bad Faith Upheld In Construction Defect Case

    Georgia Supreme Court Rules Construction Defects Can Constitute an Occurrence in CGL Policies

    When is an Indemnification Provision Unenforceable?

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Wrap Music to an Insurer’s Ears?”

    Corrective Action Protest Grounds for GSA Schedule Federal Construction Contractors

    NTSB Sheds Light on Fatal Baltimore Work Zone Crash
    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

    Concurrent Causation Doctrine Applies Where Natural and Man-made Perils Combine to Create Loss

    January 19, 2017 —
    The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between the District Courts in applying the Concurrent Causation Doctrine where there were multiple causes creating the loss. Sebo v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 2016 Fla. LEXIS 2596 (Fla. Dec. 1, 2016). After purchasing his home, John Sebo procured an "all risks" homeowners policy provided by American Home Assurance Company (AHAC). Shortly after Sebo purchased the property, water began to intrude the home during rainstorms. Major water leaks occurred. It became clear that the home suffered from major design and construction defects. In October 2005, Hurricane Wilma further damaged the home. AHAC denied coverage for most of the claimed losses. It provided $50,000 for mold. The residence could not be repaired and was eventually demolished. 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

    Travelers v. Larimer County and the Concept of Covered Cause of Loss

    May 10, 2013 —
    Travelers Indemnity Company (“Travelers”) recently won a decision against Larimer County regarding a claim for damage caused to the roofs of several buildings at the County Fairgrounds. Travelers Indemnity Company v. Board of County Commissioners for Larimer County, Slip Copy, 2013 WL 238865, p. 1 (10th Cir. 2013). Larimer County alleged, in district court, that snowstorms and the weight of the snow build-up caused damage to the roof structures. Id. After the district court found for Travelers on a motion for summary judgment, Larimer County appealed the ruling, claiming that Traveler’s was obligated under the insurance policy to pay for repair costs to portions of the roofing structure. Id. The underlying claim for repairs originates with several snowstorms that caused damage to several buildings on the County Fairgrounds. The damage claimed was widespread to the roof structures, evidenced by rolling and buckling purlins (horizontal beams running along the length of the roof, resting upon the principal rafters at right angles and supporting the ordinary rafters). Travelers denied the claim based on its own investigation which concluded the damage was caused by design and construction defects, and therefore excluded from coverage under the insurance policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
    Mr. Iandiorio can be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

    Is the Removal and Replacement of Nonconforming Work Economically Wasteful?

    September 19, 2022 —
    There are times a contractor installs the wrong material or system contrary to the plans and specifications. A nonconformity. The owner wants the already-installed material or system to be replaced in conformity with the plans and specifications. However, what was installed is functionally equivalent to what the plans and specifications required and would be cost prohibitive, i.e., economically wasteful. If the contractor elects to remove and replace the nonconforming work, it may seek a change order because it is economically wasteful. Or, the contractor may refuse (typically, not the best approach) in furtherance of taking on the fight based on the economic wastefulness associated with the removal and replacement. A recent case, David Boland, Inc. v. U.S., 2022 WL 3440349 (Fed.Cl. 2022), talks about this exaction situation and the economic waste doctrine. This is an important doctrine for contractors to understand when faced with a similar predicament. Here, a contractor was hired by the government to construct a wastewater collection system that was to be owned and operated by a private company. The contractor’s work was going to be incorporated into a larger sewer system that the private company already operated. The contractor was required to install sewer manholes reinforced with steel in accordance with an ASTM standard. The manholes could be rejected if they did not conform to the ASTM standard. Compliance with this ASTM standard was also required by the private company’s construction protocol for the infrastructure, which was incorporated into the contractor’s contract with the government. The contractor was required to strictly comply with the contract. 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

    Communicate with the Field to Nip Issues in the Bud

    March 16, 2017 —
    This past week, I spent some time meeting with clients and generally discussing the day to day operations of construction companies. One common theme of these discussions (and of this construction blog) was the need to deal with problems at a job site early. I have often discussed the contract side of catching things early, and firmly believe that this is the first step to a successful construction project. This post is about the equally important “operational” side of this advice. What do I mean by “operational?” Essentially, while the contract negotiation and drafting tries to anticipate problems that might occur, the operational side deals with problems on a job site as they occur. In short, moving from what might occur (something I as a construction lawyer think about all the time), to what is actually occurring when putting that contract to work. Whether you are a general contractor, owner, subcontractor, or supplier to a construction project, you are likely well aware of the fact that Murphy was an optimist and something will go wrong. How you deal with this fact can be the difference between a successful, profitable project, and one that ends up in litigation (read: not as profitable). However, in order to deal with a problem properly, you need to know about the problem before it explodes. Without this knowledge, a problem could fester and lead to non-payment, subcontractor mechanic’s liens, and other headaches that don’t need to be further mentioned here. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

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

    September 16, 2024 —
    (August 15, 2024) - Best Lawyers has selected 171 Lewis Brisbois attorneys across 47 offices for its 31st edition of The Best Lawyers in America. It has also recognized four Lewis Brisbois partners on its "Lawyers of the Year" list: San Diego Partner Gary K. Brucker Jr. (Litigation - Real Estate); Weirton Managing Partner Michelle L. Gorman (Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions - Defendants); Roanoke Partner Paul C. Kuhnel (Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants); and Los Angeles Co-Administrative Partner Steven R. Lewis (Product Liability Litigation - Defendants). Please join us in congratulating the following attorneys on their Best Lawyers recognition! You can see the full list of attorneys named to Best Lawyers' Ones to Watch in America here. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    DEP Plan to Deal with Noxious Landfill Fumes Met with Criticism

    March 19, 2014 —
    Residents of Roxbury, New Jersey have dealt with hydrogen sulfide fumes coming from the Fenimore landfill, which gives off a rotten-egg smell and many say have “made them or their children sick,” according to New Jersey Online. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced their plan to fix the situation, which is to “first dig more wells at Fenimore, to help feed noxious gasses into the oxidizer and scrubber system the agency has credited with radically reducing smells over the last several months.” But no one seems to be satisfied with the plan, according to New Jersey Online: “Not state Sen. Anthony R. Bucco, who authored a bill to enable a state takeover of the site last year. Not the Roxbury Township Council. Not the activist group created to respond to Fenimore issues. Not one of the state's most vocal environmental organizations. And not the site's owner, who has been in multi-pronged litigation with the state for months.” Roxbury’s mayor, Jim Rilee, stated, “The council and I will continue to demand that the DEP show us compelling data that supports its conclusions and that its plan is based only on what is best for Township residents," as quoted by New Jersey Online. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Why’d You Have To Say That?

    October 09, 2023 —
    A surety seeking collateral from indemnitors filed suit in federal court in Louisiana pursuant to a forum selection clause in the indemnity agreement between the parties. The indemnitors were being called upon to provide collateral as a result of defaults on two Louisiana Department of Transportation projects. Seeking to move the dispute to Louisiana state court from federal court, the indemnitors filed a forum non conveniens motion. Among the arguments of the indemnitors removing the case out of federal court was the doctrine of “direct-benefits” estoppel – a policy which “‘holds a non-signatory to a clause in a contract if it “knowingly exploits the agreement” containing the clause.’ In re Lloyd's Reg. N. Am., Inc., 780 F.3d 283, 291 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Bridas S.A.P.I.C. v. Gov't of Turkmenistan, 345 F.3d 347, 361-62 (5th Cir. 2003)).” 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

    How Concrete Mistakes Added Cost to the Recent Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge Project

    December 16, 2023 —
    A disputed insurance claim heading for trial next year over construction of Washington, D.C.'s two-year-old Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge revolves around the design-build joint venture's problems in 2019 with concrete voids and honeycombing. The flaws required demolition and rebuilding costing millions of dollars. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of