BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs 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


    Insured's Complaint for Breach of Contract and Bad Faith Adequately Pleads Consequential Damages

    A Court-Side Seat: Appeals and Agency Developments at the Close of 2020

    First Circuit Rejects Insurer’s “Insupportable” Duty-to-Cooperate Defense in Arson Coverage Suit

    Feds Move To Indict NY Contractor Execs, Developer, Ex-Cuomo Aide

    It’s Not Just the Millennium Tower That’s Sinking in San Francisco

    Improvements to AIA Contracts?

    Back to Basics – Differing Site Conditions

    Don’t Put All Your Eggs in the Silent-Cyber Basket

    The American Rescue Plan Act: What Restaurants Need to Act on NOW

    DIR Reminds Public Works Contractors to Renew Registrations Before January 1, 2016 to Avoid Hefty Penalty

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (05/11/22)

    Increasing Use of Construction Job Cameras

    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    Lost Productivity or Inefficiency Claim Can Be Challenging to Prove

    Meet Some Key Players in 2020 Environmental Litigation

    Six Inducted into California Homebuilding Hall of Fame

    Less Than Perfectly Drafted Endorsement Bars Flood Coverage

    Building Recovery Comes to Las Vegas, Provides Relief

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    Part I: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Area Variance Standard; Property Owners May Obtain an Area Variance When Special Circumstances Existed at Purchase

    California Rejects Judgments By Confession Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1132

    U.K. Construction Growth Unexpectedly Accelerated in January

    A New Study on Implementing Digital Visual Management

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Give a Little Extra …”

    No Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims under Kentucky Law

    Lien Law Change in Idaho

    David A. Frenznick Awarded Multiple Accolades in the 2020 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America

    ASCE Statement on EPA Lead Pipe and Paint Action Plan

    Fargo Shows Record Home Building

    San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim

    Contract Change #1- Insurance in the A201 (law note)

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    S&P 500 Little Changed on Home Sales Amid Quarterly Rally

    Limited Number of Insurance-Related Bills Passed by 2014 Hawaii Legislature

    Congratulations to Nicholas Rodriguez on His Promotion to Partner

    The Fifth Circuit, Applying Texas Law, Strikes Down Auto Exclusion

    Four Ways Student Debt Is Wreaking Havoc on Millennials

    Housing Starts in U.S. Drop to Lowest Level in Three Months

    Connecticut Supreme Court to Review Several Issues in Asbestos Coverage Case

    Re-Entering the Workplace: California's Guideline for Employers

    Construction Mezzanine Financing

    Key Amendments to Insurance Claims-Handling Regulations in Puerto Rico

    Genuine Dispute Summary Judgment Reversed for Abuse of Discretion and Trial of Fact Questions About Expert Opinions

    Construction of World's Tallest Building to Resume With New $1.9B Contract for Jeddah Tower

    Balancing Cybersecurity Threats in Smart Cities: Is the Potential Convenience of “Smart” Intersections Worth the Risk?

    Nailing Social Media: The Key to Generating Leads for Construction Companies

    The Impact of the IIJA and Amended Buy American Act on the Construction Industry

    The Vallagio HOA Appeals the Decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals

    Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Serves as Chair of the ABA Minority Trial Lawyer Committee’s Programming Subcommittee
    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

    The Miller Act: More Complex than You Think

    October 07, 2016 —
    Keith Bremer, senior partner of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP, has a feature article in the Fall 2016 issue of Construction Claims Magazine, and discusses how the Miller Act has been slowly changing: “This is a complex piece of legislation that is evolving and has been decided differently depending on the federal district a case is heard in,” Bremer wrote. Bremer explained how the courts continue to rule differently in regards to the Miller Act. “Currently it seems jurisdictions are split on the issue of whether or not subcontractors should be allowed to bring both a federal and state cause of action stemming from payment by a Miller Act bond. Therefore, any surety writing these bonds should pay strict attention to how broad or narrow the federal district that would hear the claim has interpreted the scope of a subcontractor’s remedies for Miller Act claims.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    D.C. Decision Finding No “Direct Physical Loss” for COVID-19 Closures Is Not Without Severe Limitations

    August 24, 2020 —
    On August 6, 2020, in Rose’s 1 LLC, et al. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Civ. Case No. 2020 CA 002424 B, a District of Columbia trial court found in favor of an insurer on cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether COVID-19 closure orders constitute a “direct physical loss” under a commercial property policy. At its core, the decision ignores key arguments raised in the summary judgment briefing and is narrowly premised on certain dictionary definitions of the terms, “direct,” “physical,” and “loss.” Relying almost entirely on those definitions – each supplied by the insureds in their opening brief – the court set the stage for its ultimate conclusion by finding “direct” to mean “without intervening persons, conditions, or agencies; immediate”; and “physical” to mean “of or pertaining to matter ….” The court then apparently accepted the policy’s circular definition of “loss” as meaning “direct and accidental loss of or damage to covered property.” Importantly, however, despite recognizing the fundamental rule of insurance policy construction that the court “must interpret the contract ‘as a whole, giving reasonable, lawful, and effective meaning to all its terms, and ascertaining the meaning in light of all the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made,’” the court apparently ignored the insureds’ argument that the term “property damage” is specifically defined in the policy to include “loss of use” without any specific reference to physical or tangible damage. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    When Is a Project Delay Material and Actionable?

    January 11, 2022 —
    Welcome to 2022! This year, the construction industry will undoubtedly reflect on the last two years as unprecedented times plagued by construction project delays. The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to suspension of work and closure of construction projects worldwide in 2020. The end of 2021 brought additional delays caused by an inexplicable clog in the supply chain of construction materials. The combined impact of these events on project milestones and completion deadlines led our clients to ask, with unusual and particular urgency, who is liable for such delays and how do contracting parties lessen the consequences from such unexpected and uncontrollable delays. Granted that project delays are nothing new or unusual. They were common enough before inflation caused shipping complications and pandemic decimated the construction labor force. All delays, whatever the source, variably cause loss to all players on a construction project. But not all delays matter when it comes to claims and remedies available to the contracting parties in dispute resolution, where the determinative focus is on material delays impacting the entire project and on delays the claimant can credibly prove. Most, if not all, jurisdictions interpret actionable delays from the contract documents for the project. The contract is definitely where you should start before pursuing any delay remedies. Delay remedies may be a time extension only, or a time extension plus your additional general conditions. Some delay remedies may be barred by the contract’s express terms and may be enforced adversely by the courts when such contract terms are indisputable. See Quinn Constr. v. Skanska USA Bldg., Inc., 730 F. Supp. 2d 401, 411 (D.C. Pa. 2010) (enforcing the subcontractor’s contractual waiver of claims for delay and disruption damages). On the other hand, delay damages that are expressly allowed by the contract—like overtime necessitated by the delays—are usually actionable and recoverable. Id. However, not only the contract terms, but applicable law, may affect the outcome. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rick Erickson, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Erickson may be contacted at rerickson@swlaw.com

    Potential Pitfalls Under the Contract Disputes Act for Federal Government Contractors

    February 28, 2018 —
    The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) governs monetary and non-monetary disputes arising out of contracts or implied-in-fact contracts between the federal government and contractors. Because the CDA is an exclusive remedy, it is important that contractors be wary of the many pitfalls that may be encountered by a contractor seeking to assert a claim against the government under the CDA. The pitfalls faced by a contractor under the CDA can arise before a contractor becomes aware of a potential claim. Pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 43.204(c), a contracting officer should include in any supplemental agreement, including any change order, a Contractor’s Statement of Release which requires a contractor to execute a broad release of the government from any and all liability under the contract. As a result of this FAR provision, in executing a routine change order, a contractor may inadvertently release its right to pursue a potential claim under the CDA. A contractor should always review any release language prior to executing a supplemental agreement or change order with the government. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah K. Carpenter, Smith Currie
    Ms. Carpenter may be contacted at skcarpenter@smithcurrie.com

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George Successfully Oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal

    September 11, 2023 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George successfully opposed Plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior dismissal of plaintiff’s medical malpractice action brought before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. The lawsuit, commenced by Plaintiff in 2015, alleged medical malpractice stemming from treatment Plaintiff received at a New York medical facility after falling out of a window at a rental property owned by Traub Lieberman’s client (“Property Owner”). Property Owner moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint or preclude Plaintiff from offering evidence in support of its claims, or in the alternative, compel plaintiff to produce all outstanding discovery. The Medical Facility cross-moved for the same relief. Defendants agreed to adjourn the motion until after plaintiff’s deposition, but plaintiff made no effort to secure an adjournment with the court and plaintiff filed no opposition to the motion, allowing the motion to be granted on default. Plaintiff waited nearly a year to file a motion to vacate the default judgment, despite receiving notification of the default from defense counsel. Property Owner, in opposing plaintiff’s motion, pointed to plaintiff’s long history of dilatory conduct and failure to comply with discovery orders in support of its position that plaintiff failed to show any good cause for its default on the motion to dismiss. Reprinted courtesy of Colleen E. Hastie, Traub Lieberman and Jeffrey George, Traub Lieberman Ms. Hastie may be contacted at chastie@tlsslaw.com Mr. George may be contacted at jgeorge@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Four Ways Student Debt Is Wreaking Havoc on Millennials

    December 10, 2015 —
    Navient, the country's largest student debt servicer, put out a report Wednesday that suggests young people are doing just fine with their finances. The study surveyed 3,000 millennials and concluded that they are happily taking out mortgages, starting families, saving money, and managing their budgets. "Young adults are not only financially healthy but also actively focused on saving," the report said. Navient may be overstating things. Here are four reasons you should not be convinced that things are going that well for young people who took out student loans. 1. Student Debt Seems to Dampen Homebuying People who finished college were more likely to have a mortgage than people who got only a high school education, the Navient study showed. Students who took out loans for college and didn't graduate, however, are worse off than those who never went at all. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Natalie Kirtroeff, Bloomberg

    Court Addresses When Duty to Defend Ends

    August 24, 2020 —
    There are certain generally held principles regarding an insurer’s duty to defend. One of these principles is that an insurer has a duty to defend its insured if the complaint states a claim that potentially falls within the policy’s coverage. However, there is a lack of consistency regarding the point at which the insurers’ duty to defend ends. When the only potentially covered claim has been dismissed, must the insurer continue to defend? Certain jurisdictions, such as Hawaii and Minnesota, have held that an insurer’s duty to defend continues through an appeals process, or until a final judgment has been entered, disposing of the entire case. Commerce & Industry Insurance Company v. Bank of Hawaii, 832 P.2d 733 (Haw. 1992); Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Insurance Company, 559 N.W. 2d 411 (Minn. 1997). Earlier this week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania took a different approach to this question in Westminster American Insurance Company v. Spruce 1530, No. 19-539, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106534 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 2020) – holding that the trial court’s dismissal of the only potentially covered claim was sufficient to terminate Westminster’s duty to defend. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Margo E. Meta, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Meta may be contacted at metam@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    U.S. Stocks Fluctuate Near Record After Housing Data

    February 25, 2014 —
    U.S. stocks fluctuated near a record high after data showed slower growth in home prices and a drop in consumer confidence, while Macy’s Inc. and Home Depot Inc. reported higher-than-estimated earnings. Macy’s and Home Depot rose at least 3.1 percent. Tesla Motors Inc. climbed 16 percent as Morgan Stanley more than doubled its projected price for the stock. Office Depot Inc. slumped 11 percent after reporting an unexpected loss. Tenet Healthcare Corp. declined 11 percent as its forecast missed analysts’ estimates. The S&P 500 (SPX) gained 0.1 percent to 1,848.59 at 1:59 p.m. in New York, poised for the highest close ever. Earlier, the U.S. equity benchmark lost 0.4 percent. The Dow Jones Industrial Average advanced 14.05 points, or 0.1 percent, to 16,221.19. Trading in S&P 500 stocks was 7 percent below the 30-day average during this time of the day. Ms. Wang may be contacted at lwang8@bloomberg.net; Ms. Bost may be contacted at cbost2@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lu Wang and Callie Bost, Bloomberg