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


    Insurance Law Client Alert: California FAIR Plan Limited to Coverage Provided by Statutory Fire Insurance Policy

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    Reinventing the Building Envelope – Interview with Gordon A Geddes

    Strict Rules for Home Remodel Contracts in California

    Whitney Stefko Named to ENR’s Top Young Professionals, formerly ENR’s Top 20 Under 40, in California

    Texas Supreme Court Holds Anadarko’s $100M Deepwater Horizon Defense Costs Are Not Subject To Joint Venture Liability Limits

    Ex-Ironworkers Local President Sentenced to Prison Term for Extortion

    California Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against Builders

    Development in CBF Green Building Case in Maryland

    New Insurance Case: Owners'​ Insurance Barred in Reimbursement Action against Tenant

    Disjointed Proof of Loss Sufficient

    Insurer in Bad Faith Due to Adjuster's Failure to Keep Abreast of Case Law

    You’re Only as Good as Those with Whom You Contract

    Big Policyholder Win in Michigan

    UK Agency Seeks Stricter Punishments for Illegal Wastewater Discharges

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

    New York Building Boom Spurs Corruption Probe After Death

    OSHA Updates: New Submission Requirements for Injury and Illness Records

    State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

    Res Judicata Bars Insured from Challenging Insurer's Use of Schedule to Deduct Depreciation from the Loss

    How Retro-Commissioning Can Extend the Life of a Building—and the Planet

    New Jersey Appeals Court Ruled Suits Stand Despite HOA Bypassing Bylaw

    Breaking Down Homeowners Association Laws In California

    Attorney's Erroneous Conclusion that Limitations Period Had Not Expired Was Not Grounds For Relief Under C.C.P. § 473(b)

    Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Secures Summary Judgment Win for National Hotel Chain

    What Construction Firm Employers Should Do Right Now to Minimize Legal Risk of Discrimination and Harassment Lawsuits

    Cybersecurity on Your Project: Why Not Follow National Security Strategy?

    The Miller Act Explained

    Insurers' Communications Through Brokers Not Privileged

    Providing Your Insurer Prompt Notice

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    Broker for Homeowners Policy Has No Duty to Advise Insureds on Excess Flood Coverage

    New Tariffs Could Shorten Construction Expansion Cycle

    Nuclear Energy Gets a Much-Needed Boost

    Mass-Timber Furnished Apartments Fare Well in Fire Tests

    OSHA Releases COVID-19 Guidance

    Video: Contractors’ Update on New Regulations Governing Commercial Use of Drones

    Plaintiffs’ Claims in Barry v. Weyerhaeuser Company are Likely to Proceed after Initial Hurdle

    Subcontractor Entitled to Defense for Defective Work Causing Property Damage Beyond Its Scope of Work

    Rooftop Owners Sue Cubs Consultant for Alleged False Statements

    Lenders Facing Soaring Costs Shutting Out U.S. Homebuyers

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

    Up in Smoke - 5th Circuit Finds No Coverage for Hydrochloric Acid Spill Based on Pollution Exclusion

    Court of Appeals Finds Arbitration Provision Incorporated by Reference Unenforceable

    Construction Defect Settlement in Seattle

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds Fire Damage Resulted from Single Occurrence

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Listed in the Best Lawyers in America© 2017

    Ahlers Distinguished As Top Super Lawyer In Washington And Nine Firm Members Recognized As Super Lawyers Or Rising Stars

    NLRB Hits Unions with One-Two Punch the Week Before Labor Day

    Congratulations to Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, Peter Brown, Karen Baytosh, and Associate Matthew Cox for Their Inclusion in 2022 Best Lawyers!
    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. Leveraging 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

    Three White and Williams Lawyers Named Top Lawyers by Delaware Today

    December 07, 2020 —
    White and Williams is pleased to announce that John Balaguer, Managing Partner of the Wilmington office, Partner Stephen Milewski and Counsel Dana Spring Monzo have been chosen by their peers as Delaware Today's 2020 "Top Lawyers." The annual list recognizes John, Steve and Dana in the practice area of Medical Malpractice for the Defense. John has over 30 years of experience defending complex tort cases and is recognized as one of the leading trial lawyers in the State of Delaware. Steve has over 15 years of experience as a trial lawyer specializing in healthcare law, particularly defending hospitals, doctors and healthcare providers in medical negligence cases. Dana's practice is focused on complex civil litigation, primarily medical malpractice. For more than a decade she has represented the interests of physicians, hospitals and healthcare providers in Delaware. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    The Indemnification Limitation in Section 725.06 does not apply to Utility Horizontal-Type Projects

    February 07, 2018 —

    One of the most important provisions in construction contracts is the indemnification provision. Appreciating contractual indemnification obligations are critical and certainly should not be overlooked. Ever!

    Florida Statute s. 725.06 (written about here and here) contains a limitation on contractual indemnification provisions for personal injury or property damage in construction contracts. There should always be an indemnification provision in a construction contract that addresses property damage or personal injury. Always!

    Section 725.06 pertains to agreements in connection with “any construction, alteration, repair, or demolition of a building, structure, appurtenance, or appliance, including moving and excavating associated therewith…” If the contract requires the indemnitor (party giving the indemnification) to indemnify the indemnitee (party receiving the indemnification) for the indemnitee’s own negligence, the indemnification provision is unenforceable unless it contains a “monetary limitation on the extent of the indemnification that bears a reasonable commercial relationship to the contract and is part of the project specifications or bid documents, if any.” It is important to read the statute when preparing and dealing with a contractual indemnification provision.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

    February 10, 2020 —
    Is an insured (or putative insured) entitled to recover its legal expenses if it is successful in coverage litigation? In some states, no. In many other states, yes – based on either a statute or the common law. In New York, an insured may recover such expenses if it was “cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations,” and, while forced into that posture, the insured defeats the insurer’s claim. Mighty Midgets, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 389 N.E.2d 1080, 1085 (N.Y. 1979). As a corollary to that rule, the insured is not entitled to its expenses “in an affirmative action brought by [the insured] to settle its rights. . . .” Id. at 1085. Earlier this week, the New York federal court in United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Lux Maint. & Ren. Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2019) became the latest to apply the Mighty Midgets rule, awarding several insureds their legal expenses after defeating the insurer’s declaratory judgment action. In Lux, the CGL insurer of a façade-renovation contractor sued the contractor (its named insured) and several owners of a hospital (putative additional insureds) at which the façade-renovation work took place, claiming that the insurer did not owe a defense or indemnity to any of those companies in connection with an underlying bodily injury action brought by an employee of the contractor who was injured while performing the work. The insurer and the putative additional insureds filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the coverage issues, with the putative additional insureds also seeking to recover their legal expenses for defending against the insurer’s action. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that, based on the contractor’s agreement to provide coverage for the hospital owners, and a comparison between the underlying allegations and the policy, the insurer owed the hospital owners coverage as additional insureds to the contractor’s policy; the court also concluded that the insurer owed coverage for the contractor’s contractual defense and indemnity obligations to the hospital owners. After concluding that the insurer’s claim that it did not owe coverage lacked merit, the court turned to the additional insureds’ request for their legal expenses. The court examined the “well settled” rule under New York law “that an insured cannot recover his legal expenditure in a dispute with an insurer over coverage, even if the insurer loses and is obligated to provide coverage,” but also New York’s “limited exception” to that rule, “under which an insured who is ‘cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations, and who prevails on the merits, may recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against the insurer’s action.’ ” Lux, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805, at *18 (quoting Mighty Midgets, 389 N.E.2d at 1085). Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Watchdog Opens Cartel Probe Into Eight British Homebuilders

    April 02, 2024 —
    Britain’s top antitrust enforcer has opened an investigation into eight housebuilders to probe potential information sharing, sharpening scrutiny of a sector that’s failing to deliver enough affordable housing to meet demand. The Competition and Markets Authority has opened a cartel investigation into eight developers including Barratt Developments Plc, the Berkeley Group, Persimmon Plc and Vistry Group Plc. The investigation centers on concerns the companies may have exchanged competitively sensitive information, which could be influencing the build-out of sites and the prices of new homes. An initial review will take place until December. CMA Chief Executive Officer Sarah Cardell told Bloomberg Television the watchdog had seen potential evidence of companies exchanging information relating to pricing, sales rates, and incentives offered to new homebuyers. The watchdog has the power to fine firms a maximum penalty of as much as 10% of annual revenue and disqualify directors following cartel investigations. Reprinted courtesy of Damian Shepherd, Bloomberg and Katharine Gemmell, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Braves Stadium Is Three Months Ahead of Schedule, Team Says

    September 03, 2015 —
    Construction of the new $1.1 billion home of Major League Baseball’s Atlanta Braves is about three months ahead of schedule, according to team executives. “We’ve built a really solid, aggressive, efficient plan,” Mike Plant, head of the team’s business operations, said in an interview Thursday during a brick-laying ceremony. “No one has ever built a ballpark of this scale and scope in 39 months, and we’re going to do it in 36.” The 41,500-seat stadium, 14 miles northwest of Turner Field and known as SunTrust Park, will be about 20 percent smaller than the existing ballpark and could be completed by mid-November 2016, Plant and Braves Chairman Terry McGuirk said. The complex will include a 250-room Omni hotel, a nine-story corporate office for Comcast Corp. and the Roxy Theatre, a 4,000-seat music venue. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Buteau, Bloomberg

    Reminder: Know Your Contractor Licensing Rules

    January 09, 2023 —
    In the course of my construction law practice, I have the pleasure of speaking with and talking to contractors and subcontractors that are based in Virginia and also based in other states. With the more nationalized construction landscape due to the constricted construction economy, I have more and more interaction with the latter category. When I get a call from an out of state contractor (often when that construction company has an issue), one of my first questions is always whether that contractor has obtained its contractors license here in Virginia. In most cases, the answer is “Yes” and we can move on. However, in some instances, the answer is no and we have to discuss the potential consequences. Among the consequences for failure to obtain the proper contractor license prior to performing work in Virginia are as follows:
    1. Inability to record a mechanic’s lien
    2. Possible criminal charges
    3. Possible inability to collect for construction work performed
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Coverage Found For Cleanup of Superfund Site Despite Pollution Exclusion

    March 05, 2015 —
    The court determined that the pollution exclusion did not bar defense or indemnity for the insured's obligation to clean up a superfund site. Decker Mfg. Corp. v. The Travelers Indem. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12169 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 3, 2015). From 1966 to 1981, Decker disposed of its waste materials at the township landfill. The landfill was closed in 1981. Decker was insured under a CGL policy for a four year period from January 1, 1973, through January 1, 1977. After the landfill was closed, the EPA began an investigation which eventually led to a Unilateral Administrative Order in 1995 in which Decker was ordered to remove drums, construct a landfill cap, and monitor groundwater. Decker notified Travelers of the EPA's order on November 14, 1995. Travelers responded that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Decker. 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

    Florida Court of Appeals Holds Underlying Tort Case Must Resolve Before Third-Party Spoliation Action Can Be Litigated

    December 04, 2018 —
    In Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 43 Fla. L. Weekly 2225 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App., Sept. 26, 2018), the Third District Court of Appeals of Florida addressed whether a third-party spoliation claim should be litigated and tried at the same time as the plaintiff’s underlying tort case. The court held that since the third-party spoliation claim did not accrue until the underlying claim was resolved, the spoliation cause of action could not proceed until the plaintiff resolved his underlying claim. The underlying matter in Amerisure involved a personal injury claim by plaintiff Lazaro Rodriguez. While working as an employee for BV Oil, Inc. (BV), Mr. Rodriguez was knocked from the top of a gasoline tanker he was fueling at a gasoline storage warehouse owned by Cosme Investment (Cosme). Mr. Rodriguez filed a personal injury lawsuit against Cosme. He also collected worker’s compensation benefits from Amerisure Insurance Company (Amerisure), BV’s worker’s compensation carrier, while his lawsuit was pending. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White & Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com