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


    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    Citigroup Reaches $1.13 Billion Pact Over Mortgage Bonds

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    Big League Dreams a Nightmare for Town

    Feds Used Wire to Crack Las Vegas HOA Scam

    Construction Defect Lawsuit May Affect Home Financing

    Colorado Governor Polis’s Executive Order D 2020 101: Keeping Up with Colorado’s Shifting Eviction Landscape during COVID-19

    Court Holds That Public Entity Can Unilaterally Replace Subcontractor Under California’s Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act

    Gordon & Rees Ranks #5 in Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Nation

    Heat Exposure Safety and Risk Factors

    Separation of Insureds Provision in CGL Policies

    William Lyon Homes Unites with Polygon Northwest Company

    Partner Yvette Davis Elected to ALFA International’s Board of Directors

    Couple Claims ADA Renovation Lead to Construction Defects

    How Does Your Construction Contract Treat Float

    Waive Not, Want Not: Waivers and Releases on California Construction Projects

    North Carolina Weakened Its Building Codes in 2013

    Pending Sales of Existing Homes in U.S. Decline for Eighth Month

    Chambers USA 2020 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Three Steps to a Safer Jobsite

    Century Communities Acquires Dunhill Homes Las Vegas Operations

    Supreme Court of Kentucky Holds Plaintiff Can Recover for Stigma Damages in Addition to Repair Costs Resulting From Property Damage

    Your Bad Faith Jury Instruction Against an Insurer is Important

    Aecmaster’s Digital Twin: A New Era for Building Design

    OSHA Issues Final Rule on Electronic Submission of Injury and Illness Data

    Recent Statutory Changes Cap Retainage on Applicable Construction Projects

    Are Proprietary Specifications Illegal?

    CSLB “Fast Facts” for Online Home Improvement Marketplaces

    Disaster-Relief Bill Stalls in Senate

    The Future Has Arrived: New Technologies in Construction

    The Right to Repair Act Means What it Says and Says What it Means

    Insurer's Refusal to Consider Supplemental Claim Found Improper

    Rikus Locati Selected to 2024 Northern California Rising Stars!

    Haight Welcomes Elizabeth Lawley

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment Based Upon Vandalism Exclusion

    Honoring Veterans Under Our Roof & Across the World

    School District Client Advisory: Civility is not an Option, It is a Duty

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    No Coverage for Collapse of Building

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

    Difference Between a Novation And A Modification to a Contract

    Massachusetts Judge Holds That Insurer Breached Its Duty To Defend Lawsuit After Chemical Spill

    Obama Says Keystone Decision May Be Announced in Weeks or Months

    Force Majeure and COVID-19 in Construction Contracts – What You Need to Know

    Is The Enforceability Of A No-Damage-For-Delay Provision Inappropriate For Summary Judgment

    A Lien Might Just Save Your Small Construction Business

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2022 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

    Clean Energy and Conservation Collide in California Coastal Waters

    Construction Defects in Roof May Close School

    Assert a Party’s Noncompliance of Conditions Precedent with Particularity
    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. Drawing 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

    Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings

    March 19, 2014 —
    In Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assoc. v. Superior Court (No. D064567, March 12, 2014), the California Court of Appeal held a homeowners association’s (“HOA”) litigation meetings related to the HOA’s construction defect lawsuit were subject to protection under the attorney-client privilege. Specifically, the court concluded the common interest doctrine applied to the subject litigation meetings, thereby barring the defendants in the HOA’s lawsuit from seeking discovery related to the content and disclosures made during those meetings. The plaintiff HOA initiated a construction defect lawsuit against a residential developer and builder, seeking damages for construction defects related to common areas. The defendants took the depositions of individual homeowners and inquired regarding the communications and disclosures made at informational litigation update meetings. The meetings were conducted by the HOA’s counsel with groups of homeowners, some of whom had filed their own, separate lawsuits against the same defendants. Motions to compel were filed after attorney-client privilege objections were asserted by counsel for the HOA. After the court-appointed discovery referee opined that the common interest doctrine applied and that the communications presented at the meetings were subject to the attorney-client privilege, the trial court rejected this recommendation and overruled the HOA’s privilege objections. The HOA filed a petition for a writ of mandate. The defendants argued the privilege had been waived based on the presence of persons who were not the clients of the HOA’s attorney, that the subject communications were not “confidential communications” and that the individual homeowners and the HOA did not share common interests at the time. After setting forth a comprehensive discussion of the statutory principles underlying the attorney-client privilege and the bases for waiver, as provided in California Evidence Code §§ 912 and 952, and summarizing applicable decisional law, the court specifically analyzed the question of whether the common interest doctrine applied in the context of the disputed HOA litigation meetings. The common interest doctrine protects confidential communications made by counsel to third parties if the third parties are present to further the interest of the client or are those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer was consulted. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Steven M. Cvitanovic, and Michael C. Parme of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com, and Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    South Carolina School District Investigated by IRS and FBI

    March 12, 2014 —
    The IRS and FBI are investigating operations of the Jasper County School District in South Carolina. According to The Post and Courier, “Assistant U.S. Attorney James May sent a letter to district officials asking them to keep financial documents, the minutes of school board meetings, employment files for top officials and all letters and emails between district employees.” Some of the problems the school district has dealt with are “legal challenges.” One of the disputes, involved a “multi-million dollar” construction defect claim for “facilities built in 2007.” The Post and Courier reported that this made up twenty percent of the more than half a million dollars paid in legal fees by the district. South Carolina “lawmakers are considering the Parent Empowerment Act, a bill that would allow the state's Education Department to take over districts that are mismanaged or need improvement if a majority of parents call for it,” according to The Post and Courier. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case Denied

    November 10, 2016 —
    The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking to establish it did not breach the policy when denying coverage for the collapse of basement walls. Belz v. Peerless Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118900 (D. Conn. Sept. 2, 2016). The Belzes purchased their home in 2001. Prior to the purchase, they were aware of notable cracking in the basement walls. An engineer was hired to inspect the cracking and determined the cracks did not threaten the structural integrity of the home. 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

    Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when General Contractor Does Not

    April 05, 2017 —
    After I wrote the title to this post, I thought, “Well, that says it all, doesn’t it?” I also considered the fact that for those that read this construction law blog on a regular basis, I am likely stating the obvious. I then thought about the fact that there can be confusion regarding the purpose of bonds versus insurance. Couple this with the fact that Murphy was an optimist, and I thought this would be a good reminder. Bonds and insurance have one fundamental difference between them. When your construction company buys insurance, that insurance is meant to protect your company. When your company provides a payment and/or performance bond, that bond is there not to protect your company but to protect everyone else on the job and the project itself. Where insurance will pay for your company’s qualifying errors so that that money does not come out of the bottom line, a bond contract will have an indemnification agreement whereby anything paid by the surety will then be reimbursed by you and your company dollar for dollar (as opposed to just the premium). 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

    Hawaii Construction Defect Law Increased Confusion

    August 27, 2013 —
    Hawaii’s Act 83 put into the law that in determining if a construction defect was due to an occurrence, the courts needed to ignore any case law that arose after the insurance policy was taken out. The hope, according to Bibeka Shrestha, writing at Law360, was to provide certainty to builders. The effect, however, “further muddled the litigation landscape.” Carl Shapiro said of the Hawaii legislature that “instead of solving the problem, they’ve created an even bigger miss.” Tred Eyerly, an insurance attorney says that the state “needs a decision from the Hawaii Supreme Court.” One result is that now the state court and the federal courts have different views on how to look at prior cases. The state courts are holding that “the uncertainly should be resolved in favor of the policyholder,” while the federal courts “pointed to earlier case law that nixed coverage for these types of claims. The legislature seems unlikely to resolve this confusion on its own. One legislative liaison said that “nobody knew how to pass a law saying ‘you will grant coverage.’” Brian Yamane also told Law360 that “there has been no attempt by anybody to introducte legislation to amend the law.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Waive It Goodbye: Despite Evidence to the Contrary, Delaware Upholds an AIA Waiver of Subrogation Clause

    April 19, 2022 —
    Subrogation professionals have always been looking for ways to defeat onerous waiver of subrogation provisions in contracts signed by insureds. However, even when contracts are unsigned, if there is intent when the contract is made – usually long before a loss occurs – a waiver of subrogation can doom what otherwise may have been a strong case. The Superior Court of Delaware considered such a scenario to determine whether a waiver of subrogation provision applied to a multimillion-dollar subrogation case. In State of Delaware Insurance Coverage Office and Factory Mutual Insurance Co., both as subrogee of the University of Delaware v. DiSabatino Construction Co., Schlosser & Associates Mechanical Contractors, Inc. and V.E. Guerrazzi, Inc., C.A. No. N19C-08-080, 2022 Del. Super. LEXIS 108 (March 17, 2022), the court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by a waiver of subrogation provision in the underlying contract. Thus, the court held that the plaintiffs could not pursue the defendants in their suit to recover damages as a result of a fire. The court specifically denied the plaintiffs’ argument that since the contract was not signed and another “short form” version was later used the waiver of subrogation provision should not apply. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

    BIM Meets Reality on the Construction Site

    September 25, 2018 —
    BIM models are mostly used by foremen on construction sites. But what if they could be made available for workers at the press of a button? This question was what the Finnish government-funded KIRA pilot project set out to answer. As a by-product, the project also produced augmented reality (AR) solutions for construction sites. The research project was called ”Digitalization of a construction project based on role and location information” (RoPa). It was conducted by construction company Fira and engineering consultancy Sweco. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers – Two Recognized as Rising Stars

    August 26, 2024 —
    Going outside the norm of our blogs, which usually discuss construction related issues, Ahlers, Cressman, & Sleight is pleased to announce that nine members of our firm have been selected to the 2024 Washington Super Lawyers list. Each year, a rigorous process that involves a nomination by peers and a third-party verification of honors, awards, verdicts, settlements, and other criteria relating to their work as an attorney, aims to select no more than five percent of the lawyers in Washington state from no more than seventy practice areas for this distinction. As mentioned, the first step in the process is to be evaluated on their work as an attorney, next candidates are evaluated by their peers and given ratings based on the information known about their work. Finally, candidates are grouped into four firm-size categories and final selections are made. The grouping process is done so that candidates are compared fairly to their peers by firm size, eliminating the potential unfairness that comes with comparing large and small firm outcomes and attorney practices. The Rising Star list involves an even narrower criteria than the Super Lawyers list. The initial process is the same, however, candidates for the Rising Stars list must be under the age of forty or have less than ten years of experience. For this category less the two and a half percent of lawyers in Washington are selected, making this quite a feat for those who have accomplished the honor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC