BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut testifying construction 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


    Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: LESLIE KING O'NEAL

    Liquidated Damages: A Dangerous Afterthought

    New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

    The Oregon Tort Claims Act (“OTCA”) Applies When a Duty Arises from Statute or Common Law and is Independent from The Terms of a Specific Contract. (OR)

    Out of Eastern Europe, a Window Into the Post-Pandemic Office

    Open & Known Hazards Under the Kinsman Exception to Privette

    Denver Parking Garage Roof Collapses Crushing Vehicles

    Colorado HB 13-1090: Concerning Payment of Amounts Due Under a Construction Agreement

    New York Shuts Down Majority of Construction

    Ten Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    Florida’s Citizens Property Insurance May Be Immune From Bad Faith, But Is Not Immune From Consequential Damages

    How Construction Contracts are Made. Hint: It’s a Bit Like Making Sausage

    Legislative Update: Bid Protest Law Changes to Benefit Contractors

    Ensuring Efficient Arbitration of Construction Disputes Involving Mechanic’s Liens

    What’s the Best Way to “Use” a Construction Attorney?

    Happy Thanksgiving from CDJ

    Effective Allocation of Damages for Federal Contract Claims

    Illinois Appellate Court Finds Insurer Estopped From Denying Coverage Where Declaratory Judgment Suit Filed Too Late

    Get to Know BJ Siegel: Former Apple Executive and Co-Founder of Juno

    Trump Administration Waives Border Wall Procurement Rules

    Firm Announces Remediation of Defective Drywall

    Unbilled Costs Remain in Tutor Perini's Finances

    Couple Claims ADA Renovation Lead to Construction Defects

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Faulty Workmanship Claim

    Navigating the New Landscape: How AB 12 and SB 567 Impact Landlords and Tenants in California

    Coverage Doomed for Failing Obtain Insurer's Consent for Settlement

    Nebraska’s Prompt Pay Act for 2015

    Chinese Hunt for Trophy Properties Boosts NYC, London Prices

    Survey: Workers Lack Awareness of Potentially Hazardous Nanomaterials

    Contractor Beware: Design-Build Firms Must Review Washington’s Licensing Requirements

    Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes

    Ohio Does Not Permit Retroactive Application of Statute of Repose

    Mortar Insufficient to Insure Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case

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

    U.K. Developer Pledges Building Safety in Wake of Grenfell

    Federal Judge Refuses to Limit Coverage and Moves Forward with Policyholder’s Claims Against Insurer and Broker

    Zoning Hearing Notice Addressed by Georgia Appeals Court

    Mitigating the Consequences of Labor Unrest on Construction Projects

    Demonstrating A Fraudulent Inducement Claim Or Defense

    The Sounds of Silence: Pennsylvania’s Sutton Rule

    Poor Pleading Leads to Loss of Claim for Trespass Due to Relation-Back Doctrine, Statute of Limitations

    Full Extent of Damage From Turkey Quakes Takes Shape

    Kansas City Airport Terminal Project Faces Delays, Rising Costs

    Sometimes You Get Away with Default (but don’t count on it)

    Federal District Court Dismisses Property Claim After Insured Allows Loss Location to Be Destroyed Prior to Inspection

    Arbitration and Mediation: What’s the Difference? What to Expect.

    Legal Disputes Soar as Poor Information Management Impacts the AEC Industry

    This New Indicator Shows There's No Bubble Forming in U.S. Housing

    Insurance Law Alert: Incorporation of Defective Work Does Not Result in Covered Property Damage in California Construction Claims

    EEOC Suit Alleges Site Managers Bullied Black Workers on NY Project
    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

    Gehry-Designed Project Seen Bringing NYC Vibe to L.A.

    April 28, 2014 —
    Billionaire Stephen Ross’s Related Cos. new project in the sleepy end of downtown Los Angeles is designed to invigorate Grand Avenue the way its Time Warner Center helped energize New York’s Columbus Circle. “The notion of bringing together this diverse mix of uses, and allowing for a lot of public spaces and public events, has proven to be very powerful in the right locations and with the right planning.” said William Witte, president of Related’s California division. The New York-based firm formed a joint venture with Los Angeles-based SBE Entertainment Group LLC to restart plans for a $650 million-to-$700 million complex with entertainment, shopping, apartments, condominiums and a luxury hotel, Witte said. After going back and forth with local officials for most of the past year, Related won approval in January for the Frank Gehry-designed project from Los Angeles County supervisors. Ms. Brandt may be contacted at nbrandt@bloomberg.net; Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadja Brandt and John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg

    Axa Buys London Pinnacle Site for Redesigned Skyscraper

    February 26, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- Axa Real Estate Investment Managers, the property unit of Europe’s largest insurer, has bought the London site of the halted Pinnacle skyscraper and plans to build a tower of its own design. The building at 22 Bishopsgate will have more than 1 million square feet (93,000 square meters) of offices, shops and restaurants, the Paris-based company said in a statement Friday. It’s paying 300 million pounds ($460 million) for the property, according to a person with knowledge of the matter who asked not to be identified because the information is private. Reprinted courtesy of Dalia Fahmy, Bloomberg and Patrick Gower, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New California Employment Laws Affect the Construction Industry for 2019

    February 18, 2019 —
    The California Legislature introduced more than 2637 bills in the second half of the 2017-2018 session that became law effective January 1, 2019, many of which address employment issues facing California employers in the construction industry. Below we have summarized some of the more important laws (the summary titles are live links to the text of the new law), and employers are urged to protect their companies by updating contracts, policies, and/or practices for compliance. The following is for general knowledge, and we recommend you consult with your attorney for specific legal advice. AB 1565 – Contractor Wage Liability: AB 1565 repeals the provision that relieved direct contractors for liability for anything other than unpaid wages and fringe or other benefit payments or contributions, including interest owed. In the past, a direct contractor could withhold “disputed” sums owed to a subcontractor if the subcontractor failed to provide “information” about their and lower-tier subcontractors’ payroll records. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Smith Currie
    Smith Currie attorneys may be contacted at info@smithcurrie.com

    Revisiting Statutory Offers to Compromise

    August 28, 2023 —
    The fourth appellate district published an opinion earlier this year in Smalley v. Subaru of America, Inc. (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 450 that serves as an excellent refresher on requirements of the “998 Offer,” or a statutory offer to compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §998. In Smalley, set in the context of a Lemon Law action, Defendant Subaru made a 998 Offer for $35,001.00, together with attorneys’ fees and costs totaling either $10,000.00 or costs and reasonably incurred attorneys’ fees, in an amount to be determined by the Court. (Smalley, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at 454.) Plaintiff objected that the offer was not reasonable and the case proceeded to trial. At trial, a jury found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded him a total judgment award of $27,555.74 – far short of the $35,001.00 offer. The trial court found Plaintiff had failed to beat the 998 at trial and that Subaru’s earlier 998 offer was reasonable. Plaintiff appealed the post-judgment order awarding Plaintiff pre-offer costs and Defendant post-offer costs on the grounds that the 998 was not reasonable in that it did not specify whether Plaintiff would be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of a motion for attorneys’ fees. The fourth district affirmed the trial court’s order and engaged in a helpful review of 998 requirements. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kathryne Baldwin, Wilke Fleury
    Ms. Baldwin may be contacted at kbaldwin@wilkefleury.com

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    November 21, 2017 —
    Originally published by CDJ on November 15, 2017 I read once that 97 percent of cases never go to trial. However, there are still the ones that do. And, then, there are the ones that do both. The following case, Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc., California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, Case No. E063551 (September 8, 2017), highlights some of the issues that can arise when portions of cases settle and other portions go to trial, the recovery of delay damages on a construction project through insurance, and the recovery of attorneys’ fees. Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs contracted with general contractor Kadena Pacific, Inc. (Kadena) to oversee construction of its Center for Blind Rehabilitation in Menlo Park, California. Kadena, in turn, contracted with subcontractor Global Modular, Inc. (Global) to construct, deliver and install 53 modular units totaling more than 37,000 square feet for a contract price of approximately $3.5 million. 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

    Fed Inflation Goal Is Elusive as U.S. Rents Stabilize: Economy

    March 12, 2014 —
    Federal Reserve efforts to nurture a more robust rate of inflation this year are likely to fall short. The reason: the biggest gains in rents are probably over. The costs to lease residential real estate, the second-biggest component of the price measure tracked by U.S. central bankers, helped put a floor under inflation over the past two years as most other components decelerated. Now, with builders cranking out a record number of multifamily buildings and the job market still far from tight, the outlook for rents is the bleakest it’s been in four years. “Because the economy is still not in the strongest position and certainly the labor market is not in the strongest position, landlords really can’t extract much more in the way of rent growth,” said Ryan Severino, a senior economist at real-estate data provider Reis Inc. in New York. Also, rents are already high, which makes more increases difficult, he said. Ms. Jamrisko may be contacted at mjamrisko@bloomberg.net; Mr. Kolet may be contacted at ikolet@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko and Ilan Kolet, Bloomberg

    The Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

    March 17, 2011 —

    The Court of Appeals of Indiana recently addressed the “Montrose” language added to the CGL ISO form in 2001 in the context of a construction defect claim where a fractured storm drain caused significant flooding a year after the drain was damaged. The insuring agreement requires that “bodily injury or “property damage” be caused by an occurrence and that the “bodily injury or “property damage” occur during the policy period. The Montrose language adds that the insurance applies only if, prior to the policy period, no insured knew that the “bodily injury or “property damage” had occurred in whole or in part. Significantly, it also states that any “bodily injury” or “property damage” which occurs during the policy period and was not, prior to the policy period known to have occurred, includes a continuation, change or resumption of that “bodily injury” or “property damage” after the end of the policy period.

    In Grange Mutual Cas. Co. v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., No. 29D04-0706-PL-1112 (Ct. App. IN March 15, 2011), http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03151109ehf.pdf, Sullivan was the General Contractor for a school construction project. Its subcontractor, McCurdy, installed the storm drain pipes. One of the storm pipes was fractured in 2005 while McCurdy was doing its installation work. More than a year later, the school experienced significant water damage due to flooding. It was later discovered that the flooding was due to the fractured storm drain. Sullivanrsquo;s insurer paid $146,403 for the water damage. That insurer brought a subrogation claim against McCurdy and its two insurers: West Bend and Grange. West Bend had issued CGL coverage to McCurdy while the construction was ongoing, including the date in which the storm pipe was fractured. Grange issued CGL coverage to McCurdy at the time of the flooding. Those two carriers jointly settled the subrogation claim and then litigated which insurer actually owed coverage for the loss. Significantly, the loss that was paid included only damages from the flooding, not any damages for the cost of repairing the pipe.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Shaun McParland Baldwin of Tressler LLP. Ms Baldwin can be contacted at sbaldwin@tresslerllp.com

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

    Appraisal Ordered After Carrier Finds Loss Even if Cause Disputed

    April 04, 2022 —
    The court ordered an appraisal when the parties differed on the amount of loss to the dwelling even when the carrier contended the dispute was over the cause of the loss. Khaleel v Amguard Ins. Co., No. 21 C 992, Memorandum Opinion and Order (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2022). The order is here. Plaintiffs home was damaged by wind and hail. A claim was submitted to Amguard for damage to the roof. Amguard found there was hail damage to the soft metal vents on the roof and estimated repair costs to be $3,815.16. Amguard found no damage to the roof itself. Plaintiffs contended there was additional damage to the roof. Plaintiffs demanded an appraisal. Amguard rejected the appraisal demand, claiming that the damage to the roof was due to wear and tear, and therefore constituted an excluded cause under the Policy. Plaintiff filed suit. After Amguard answered, plaintiffs moved for judgment on the pleadings. 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