BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting 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


    White and Williams Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers

    Trends and Issues which Can Affect Workers' Compensation Coverage for Construction Companies

    U.K. High Court COVID-19 Victory for Policyholders May Set a Trend in the U.S.

    Client Alert: Stipulated Judgment For Full Amount Of Underlying Claim As Security For Compromise Settlement Void As Unenforceable Penalty

    Construction Insurance Costs for New York Schools is Going Up

    Latin America’s Biggest Corporate Crime Gets a Worthy Epic

    When Must a New York Insurer Turn Over a Copy of the Policy?

    Coverage Rejected Under Owned Property and Alienated Property Exclusions

    Las Vegas Harmon Hotel to be Demolished without Opening

    To Bee or Not to Bee - CA Court Finds Denial of Coverage Based on Exclusion was Premature Where Facts had not been Judicially Determined

    Awarding Insurer Summary Judgment Before Discovery Completed Reversed

    “Professional Best Efforts” part 2– Reservation of Rights for Engineers who agree to “best” efforts? (law note)

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition of Seattle’s 25-story McGuire Apartments Building

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part I

    UK Construction Defect Suit Lost over One Word

    D.R. Horton Profit Beats Estimates as Home Sales Jumped

    BofA Said to Near Mortgage Deal for Up to $17 Billion

    Court of Appeals Discusses the Difference Between “Claims-Made” and “Occurrence-Based” Insurance Policies

    Under the Hood of U.S. Construction Spending Is Revised Data

    Following Pennsylvania Trend, Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Construction Defect

    Disaster-Relief Bill Stalls in Senate

    UK Construction Output Rises Unexpectedly to Strongest Since May

    Contractors May be Entitled to Both Prompt Payment Act Relief and Prejudgment Interest for a Cumulative 24%!

    California Supreme Court Adopts Vertical Exhaustion for Long-Tail Claims

    Insurers May Not Be Required to Defend Contractors In a Florida §558 Proceeding

    Punchlist: The News We Didn’t Quite Get To – May 2016

    On Rehearing, Fifth Circuit Finds Contractual-Liability Exclusion Does Not Apply

    Did New York Zero Tolerance Campaign Improve Jobsite Safety?

    Claims Made Insurance Policies

    Residential Contractors, Be Sure to Have these Clauses in Your Contracts

    A Lot of Cheap Housing Is About to Get Very Expensive

    One Word Makes All The Difference – The Distinction Between “Pay If Paid” and “Pay When Paid” Clauses

    UPDATE: Trade Secrets Pact Allows Resumed Work on $2.6B Ga. Battery Plant

    LA Lakers Partially Survive Motion to Dismiss COVID-19 Claims

    Hoboken Mayor Admits Defeat as Voters Reject $241 Million School

    Skyline Cockpit’s Game-Changing Tower Crane Teleoperation

    Employee Handbooks—Your First Line of Defense

    Even Fraud in the Inducement is Tough in Construction

    General Contractor’s Excess Insurer Denied Equitable Contribution From Subcontractor’s Excess Insurer

    Florida extends the Distressed Condominium Relief Act

    Fire Fears After Grenfell Disaster Set Back Wood Building in UK

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Allegations of Collapse Rejected

    Exculpatory Provisions in Business Contracts

    Bel Air Mansion Construction Draws Community Backlash

    Aurora Joins other Colorado Cities by Adding a Construction Defect Ordinance

    EPA and the Corps of Engineers Repeal the 2015 “Waters of the United States” Rule

    Eleventh Circuit Set to Hear Challenge to Florida Law Barring Foreign Citizens From Buying Real Property

    New Hampshire Asbestos Abatement Firm Pleads Guilty in Federal Fraud Case

    Colorado SB 15-177 UPDATE: Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee Refers Construction Defect Reform Bill to Full Senate

    Airbnb Declares End to Party!
    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

    FEMA Fire Management Assistance Granted for the French Fire

    July 08, 2024 —
    OAKLAND, Calif. – The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Region 9 Administrator authorized the use of federal funds on July 4 at 11:37 p.m. PDT / 2:37 a.m. EDT to assist the state of California to combat the French Fire burning in Mariposa County. On July 4, the state of California submitted a request for a Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG). At the time of the request, the fire threatened approximately 1,019 homes in and around Mariposa, CA, population 1,300. 95% of the threatened homes are primary residences and 5% are secondary residences. The fire started on July 4, 2024 and had burned more than 790 acres of State and private land. The fire was 0% contained. There are five large fires burning uncontrolled within the State. FMAGs provide federal funding for up to 75 percent of eligible firefighting costs. The Disaster Relief Fund provides allowances for FMAGs through FEMA to assist in fighting fires that threaten to become a greater incident. Eligible costs covered by FMAGs can include expenses for field camps, equipment use, materials, supplies and mobilization, and demobilization activities attributed to fighting the fire. For more information on FMAGs, visit https://www.fema.gov/assistance/public/fire-management-assistance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida Supreme Court Decision Limits Special Damages Presented to Juries

    July 18, 2022 —
    Tampa, Fla. (June 16, 2022) - Verdicts in personal injury cases are greatly impacted by the amount of medical expenses a plaintiff can present to juries. In Florida, collateral sources of compensation, such as insurance payments, are generally not disclosed to juries. However, caselaw also typically does not allow plaintiffs to recover the gross amount of medical bills, but instead the amount after insurance adjustments. For decades, Florida courts have considered whether the bills are reduced by the adjustments before or after verdict. The recent Florida Supreme Court decision in Dial v. Calusa Palms Master Association, Inc., No. SC21-43 (Fla. Apr. 28, 2022), has standardized the way past medical expenses are presented to juries where the plaintiff was treated under Medicare. As is commonly understood, the original amount billed by medical providers is far different than the amount actually paid. Most treatment is subject to some private or government insurance and those insurers typically have negotiated rates for treatment. Thus, the bills are reduced subject to insurance contractual adjustments and the resulting net bills are far lower. For decades, defense attorneys have argued that juries should hear only the lower net amount. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John Rine, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Rine may be contacted at John.Rine@lewisbrisbois.com

    California Supreme Court Adopts “Vertical Exhaustion” in the Long-Storied Montrose Environmental Coverage Litigation

    June 08, 2020 —
    On April 6, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued a decision that held a policyholder is entitled to access available excess coverage under any excess policy once it has exhausted directly underlying excess policies for the same policy period in Montrose Chemical Corporation v. the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Supreme Court of California, case number S244737. In its unanimous decision adopting this “vertical exhaustion” requirement, the court rejected the “horizontal exhaustion” rule urged by the policyholder’s excess insurers, under which the policyholder would have been able to access an excess policy only after it had exhausted other policies with lower attachment points from every policy period in which the environmental damage resulting in liability occurred. In 1990, Montrose sought coverage under primary policies and multiple layers of excess policies issued for periods from 1961 through 1985 for environmental damage liabilities arising from its production of insecticide in the Los Angeles area between 1947 and 1982. The ongoing dispute currently arises out of Montrose’s Fifth Amended Complaint which was filed in 2015 seeking declarations concerning exhaustion and the manner in which Montrose may allocate its liabilities across the policies. Each of the excess policies at issue contained a requirement of exhaustion of underlying coverage. The various policies described the applicable underlying coverage in four main ways: (1) some policies contained a schedule of underlying insurance listing all of the underlying policies in the same policy period by insurer name, policy number, and dollar amount; (2) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and a schedule of underlying insurance on file with the insurer; (3) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and identified one or more of the underlying insurers; and (4) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance that corresponds with the combined limits of the underlying policies in that policy period. The excess policies also provided, in various ways, that “other insurance” must be exhausted before the excess policy can be accessed. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Michael E. DiFebbo, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. DiFebbo may be contacted at difebbom@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Solar Power Inc. to Build 30-Megawatt Project in Inner Mongolia

    October 15, 2014 —
    Solar Power Inc. (SOPW), a renewable-energy developer backed by China’s LDK Solar Co., has agreed to build a solar farm with 30 megawatts of capacity in Inner Mongolia. Solar Power’s Xinyu Xinwei New Energy unit signed a construction agreement with Alxa League ZhiWei PV Power Co., the Roseville, California-based company said today in a statement. The project is expected to connect to the power grid by the end of March. Financial terms weren’t disclosed. It’s Solar Power’s second accord this month to build a project in China’s Inner Mongolia Region. Solar Power also is building a 20-megawatt power plant in Wulaichabu City. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin Doom, Bloomberg
    Mr. Doom may be contacted at jdoom1@bloomberg.net

    Architects Should Not Make Initial Decisions on Construction Disputes

    July 05, 2023 —
    A common provision often deleted from the standard form AIA documents is the provision in the AIA A201 General Conditions requiring an Initial Decision Maker (IDM) for claims between the contractor and owner. In the A201, the contracting parties have the option of naming their own IDM for the project. If an IDM is not selected (which is typically the case) the architect serves this role by default. While it is in all parties’ best interests to resolve disputes quickly and efficiently, using the architect as the IDM is not the best way to achieve such a resolution. Several reasons work against using the architect as the IDM. Contractors typically don’t trust architects to be impartial in resolving disputes because the architect is paid by the owner. Most architects don’t have the temperament or any training to facilitate dispute resolution. An architect’s “initial decision” could even drive the parties further apart and lead to further issues later in the project. The architect may also be perceived to be part of the problem that led to the dispute in the first place. Also, many architects simply prefer to avoid serving the thankless role of an IDM altogether. Lastly, inserting the architect into the dispute resolution process as a required IDM adds an additional unnecessary step to dispute resolution, which can delay the overall procedure. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
    Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

    After Elections, Infrastructure Talk Stirs Again

    December 04, 2018 —
    In the wake of Democrats’ House takeover and Republicans widening their Senate majority in the midterm elections, talk has quickly revived about taking on infrastructure legislation in the new Congress. Construction industry officials welcome the pro-infrastructure rhetoric from congressional leaders and President Trump. But it remains to be seen whether the words will spark a bill that can make it through a divided 116th Congress. Funding the package remains the high hurdle. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

    Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

    July 31, 2013 —
    On the heels of a recent order regarding coverage under a Comprehensive General Insurance policy issued by Mt. Hawley Insurance Company (“Mt. Hawley”), builders should be very wary of CGL policies providing no coverage for property damage. On January 8, 2013, District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson granted a motion for declaratory judgment filed by Mt. Hawley. The order states that the subject insurance policies issued by Mt. Hawley to Mountain View Homes II, LLC (“MV Homes”), the builder developer of the Creek Side at Parker development (the “Project”), did not provide coverage for any of the work performed by MV Homes or its subcontractors on the Project. MV Homes originally began construction on the Project in 2002 and completed construction in 2005. MV Homes was insured by National Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“National Fire”) and Mt. Hawley. In December 2008, Creek Side at Parker Homeowners Association, Inc. (“the HOA”) served notice on MV Homes. The HOA then instituted a construction defect lawsuit on June 1, 2009 against MV Homes and others. MV Homes initially demanded a defense and indemnity from National Fire, which provided a defense. Then, after two years, MV Homes demanded a defense and indemnity from Mt. Hawley in July 2011. Mt. Hawley denied coverage and did not provide a defense. The case was settled soon after, and National Fire reserved or assigned claims against Mt. Hawley. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
    Brady Iandiorio can be contacted at Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

    Follow Up on Continental Western v. Shay Construction

    March 28, 2012 —

    Writing in Construction Law Colorado, Brady Iandiorio revisits the case Continental Western v. Shay Construction. He promises to continue to follow cases dealing with Colorado HB 10-1394.

    Recently the Court ruled on two Motions to Reconsider filed by Defendants Milender White and Shay Construction.

    Procedurally, the Motions to Reconsider were ruled on by the Honorable William J. Martinez, because the day after the motions were filed the action was reassigned to Judge Martinez. In the short analysis of the Motion to Reconsider, the court leaned on Judge Walker D. Miller’s ruling on the summary judgment and his analysis of the (j)(5) and (j)(6) exclusions.

    As a quick refresher regarding the grant of summary judgment, Judge Miller agreed with Continental Western’s argument that the asserted claims were excluded under the “damage to property” exclusion. The policy’s exclusions state: “(j) Damage to Property . . . (5) that particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the ‘property damage’ arises out of those operations; or (6) that particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because ‘your work’ was incorrectly performed on it.” Judge Miller found that both exclusions (j)(5) and (6) applied to both Shay’s allegedly defective work.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio of Higgins, Hopkins, McClain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Iandiorio can be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com.

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