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


    Appraisers’ Failure to Perform Assessment of Property’s Existence or Damage is Reversible Error

    IoT: Take Guessing Out of the Concrete Drying Process

    When Do You Call Your Lawyer?

    Bill Taylor Co-Authors Chapter in Pennsylvania Construction Law Book

    Which Cities have the Most Affordable Homes?

    SB 939 Proposes Moratorium On Unlawful Detainer Actions For Commercial Tenants And Allows Tenants Who Can't Renegotiate Their Lease In Good Faith To Terminate Their Lease Without Liability

    Fire Damages Unfinished Hospital Tower at NYU Langone Medical Center

    It Has Started: Supply-Chain, Warehouse and Retail Workers of Essential Businesses Are Filing Suit

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

    Back to Basics: What is a Changes Clause?

    2021 California Construction Law Update

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

    Michigan Court Waives Goodbye to Subrogation Claims, Except as to Gross Negligence

    Texas Supreme Court Finds Payment of Appraisal Award Does Not Absolve Insurer of Statutory Liability

    Panthers Withdraw City, County Deal Over Abandoned Facility

    Insurer’s Attempt to Shift Cost of Defense to Another Insurer Found Void as to Public Policy

    U.S. Steel Invoking Carnegie’s Legacy in Revival Strategy

    Mitigating FCRA Risk Through Insurance

    Insuring Lease/Leaseback Projects

    Another Case Highlighting the Difference Between CGL Policies and Performance Bonds

    More on Duty to Defend a Subcontractor

    Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

    Hawaii Supreme Court Tackles "Other Insurance" Issues

    Insureds' Summary Judgment Motion on Mold Limitation Denied

    In Louisiana, Native Americans Struggle to Recover From Ida

    The Firm Hits the 9 Year Mark!

    I’m Sorry Ms. Jackson, I [Sovereign Immunity] am For Real

    California Condo Architects Not Liable for Construction Defects?

    Insurer Not Bound by Decision in Underlying Case Where No Collateral Estoppel

    AB5, Dynamex, the ABC Standard, and their Effects on the Construction Industry

    Used French Fry Oil Fuels London Offices as Buildings Go Green

    DOJ to Prosecute Philadelphia Roofing Company for Worker’s Death

    Apartment Investors Turn to Suburbs After Crowding Cities

    Risk Protection: Force Majeure Agreements Take on Renewed Relevance

    Housing Inflation Begins to Rise

    Is it the Dawning of the Age of Strict Products Liability for Contractors in California?

    North Carolina Exclusion j(6) “That Particular Part”

    Non-compliance With Endorsement Means No Indemnity Coverage

    Wall Street’s Favorite Suburban Housing Bet Is Getting Crowded

    Implementation of CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards Delayed

    Strangers in a Strange Land: Revisiting Arbitration Provisions to Account for Increasing International Influences

    China Construction Bank Sued in US Over Reinsurance Fraud Losses

    Texas “Loser Pays” Law May Benefit Construction Insurers

    Defense Owed to Insured Subcontractor, but not to Additional Insured

    Colorado Court of Appeals Defines “Substantial Completion” for Subcontractors’ Work so as to Shorten the Period of Time in Which They Can Be Sued

    Sarah P. Long Expands Insurance Coverage Team at Payne & Fears

    Kiewit Selected for Rebuild of Collapsed Baltimore Bridge

    Client Alert: Release of Liability Agreement Extinguishes Duty of Ordinary Care

    Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage

    When is a “Willful” Violation Willful (or Not) Under California’s Contractor Enforcement Statutes?
    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

    Boston’s Tunnel Project Plagued by Water

    August 11, 2011 —

    Boston’s Tip O’Neil Tunnel, part of the “Big Dig” project, is suffering from water leaks which has lead to millions of dollars of damage, according to an article in the Boston Globe. The report quotes Frank DePaola, the highway administrator, as likening the water leaks to “three garden hoses.” The project’s chief engineer notes that those “three garden hoses” add up to 17 million gallons a year.

    Further, the chief engineer reports notes that the leaks could compromise both safety and structural integrity. Problems have included a 110-pound light fixture that fell in February, ventilation ducts clogged with ice during the winter, and mold in utility rooms and ventilation buildings.

    Read the full story…

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

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

    June 15, 2020 —
    White and Williams is once again recognized by Chambers USA as a leading law firm in Pennsylvania for achievements and client service in the area of insurance law. In addition, four lawyers received individual honors – two for their work in insurance, one for his work in banking and finance and another for his work in commercial litigation. White and Williams is acknowledged for its renowned practice offering expert representation to insurers and reinsurers across an impressive range of areas including coverage, bad faith litigation and excess liability. The firm is recognized for its notable strength in transactional and regulatory matters, complemented by its adroit handling of complex alternative dispute resolution proceedings and is described as "reasoned and respectful." Chambers also acknowledged the firm's broad trial capabilities, including handling data privacy, professional liability and toxic tort coverage claims as well as its experience in substantial claims arising from bodily injury and wrongful death suits. White and Williams' cross-disciplinary team is also highlighted, characterized for "work[ing] well together and provid[ing] exceptional representation." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    2015 California Construction Law Update

    December 31, 2014 —
    Over 2,200 bills were introduced during the second and final year of the 2013-2014 legislative session of which 931 were signed into law. For the design and construction industry, the end of the second session, like the end of the first session, saw a number of new prevailing wage bills signed into law, which again reflected the strong Democratic majorities in both the Assembly and Senate. The end of the second session also saw the enactment of laws consolidating several existing design-build authorization sections and extending the 5% cap on retention for public works projects. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    April 25, 2012 —

    Contractual fairness ? it is part of my mantra. If you read the blog, you probably know that I preach brevity, balance and clarity in contracting. The State of Washington did well to finally eliminate something that has angered me for quite some time ? unfair indemnification.

    One of my favorite construction contract revisions is mutual indemnification. Many “up the chain” contractors and owners are going to stick you with a unilateral indemnification clause that protects them for just about everything, including their own fumbling of a project. Adding mutual indemnification provides some balance, and keeps parties reliant upon each other for success on the job site.

    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

    Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2023

    January 29, 2024 —
    Federal and state courts tackled many interesting insurance-related issues this past year. Perhaps no state had a more impactful year than Illinois, which held that construction defects could constitute an occurrence, that a LEG 3 “extension” attempting to preclude coverage for faulty or defective workmanship was ambiguous as a matter of law (applying Illinois law), and that ostensibly prohibitive “catch-all exclusions” can render policy language ambiguous in favor of coverage. Other courts wrestled with procedural inquiries, such as the legal duty of a broker in providing notice to an insurer or the ability of an insured to recoup its attorneys’ fees in pursuing a coverage action against its insurer. These are merely a sampling of the impactful insurance decisions rendered in 2023. Each year, we endeavor to identify cases of general interest to our clients and the broader insurance community. Specifically, we attempt to identify trends, cases of first impression, cases illustrating conflicts among the courts, or cases dealing with emerging issues. We now proudly unveil the top 10 most influential coverage decisions of 2023 and look ahead to a few cases to watch as 2024 unfolds. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Michael A. Amato, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com Mr. Amato may be contacted at MAmato@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Policy's Operation Classification Found Ambiguous

    May 21, 2014 —
    Property damage caused by a subcontractor's sheet piling was found to be within the policy's operation classification, which included "grading of land." Canal Indemn. Co. v. Margaretville of NSM, Inc., No. 13-13541 (11th Cir. April 15, 2014). Canal issued a CGL policy to the insured. The policy had a classification limitation provision: “This insurance applies to bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, advertising injury or medical expense arising out of only those operations that are classified and shown on the Commercial General Liability Coverage Declarations . . .” The policy's Declarations, in turn, referred to the operation classification as "Grading of Land - INCL. Borrowing, Filling or Back Filling." The policy did not define these terms. 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

    Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits

    October 20, 2016 —
    What Action Should Owners, Developers and Contractors Take in Anticipation of Successful Challenges to PLA Requirements? Recently, a federal court in New Jersey issued a decision which very well may invalidate all Project Labor Agreements (“PLA’s”) entered into as a condition to receipt of tax incentives for private development. Tax incentives utilized to promote private development are different, according to the court, than typical public works projects where PLA requirements have generally been held valid. Owners, developers, contractors and governmental entities must assess the consequences of this decision upon contracts already and to be awarded in the future where tax benefits may be linked to a PLA requirement. In 1993, in what has become known as the Boston Harbor Case, the United States Supreme Court held that state and local governmental entities may condition the award of public works contracts on the contractor’s agreement to enter into PLA’s. That decision has been followed nationwide since then to uphold the validity of various state and local law bidding conditions requiring successful bidders to negotiate and enter into project labor agreements as a condition to the award of public works contracts. The rationale is that when the government, like any other private party, is participating in an economic market, it may exercise its discretion in setting terms and conditions it believes best suit its interests in the efficient procurement of goods and services in that market. Therefore, a PLA requirement by a governmental entity engaged in market activity is no more or less valid than a PLA requirement on a purely private project. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory R. Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Begg may be contacted at gbegg@pecklaw.com Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Second Circuit Brings Clarity To Scope of “Joint Employer” Theory in Discrimination Cases

    May 02, 2022 —
    The “joint employer” doctrine has been used with increasing frequency by the plaintiffs’ bar to broaden the scope of target defendants in discrimination cases beyond those who would be traditionally regarded as the employer. This is true even in the construction industry, which has seen a rise in cases where general contractors (“GC”) or construction managers (“CM”) are being targeted when discrimination is alleged on a construction project, even when the GC or CM is far removed from the underlying events and had no control over the employees in question. Examples of this phenomenon are where a claim of harassment or discrimination originates in the lower tier ranks of subcontractors, or even where there is a claim involving an independent contractor on a project and a discrimination lawsuit ensues. Until now, the Courts in the federal circuit which includes New York City (the Second Circuit) have been left to decipher a patchwork of case law to ascertain the scope and extent of joint employer liability in discrimination cases. In a move that is certainly welcomed by contractors, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Felder v. United States Tennis Association, et al., 19-1094, recently issued a comprehensive decision which provides a helpful summary of what must be pled and proven to broaden liability under the joint employer theory in discrimination cases. Felder provides a roadmap for risk mitigation by contractors looking to limit such claims in the future or to meet them head on when they do arise. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. O’Connor, Peckar & Abramson (ConsensusDocs), Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson (ConsensusDocs) and Lauren R. Davis, Peckar & Abramson (ConsensusDocs) Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of