BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation 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


    Does a Landlord’s Violation of the Arizona Residential Landlord-Tenant Act Constitute Negligence Per Se?

    Fifth Circuit Certifies Eight-Corners Duty to Defend Issue to Texas Supreme Court

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

    No Friday Night Lights at $60 Million Texas Stadium: Muni Credit

    Avoid L&I Violations by Following Appropriate Safety Procedures

    Rising Construction Disputes Require Improved Legal Finance

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Florida “get to” costs do not constitute damages because of “property damage”

    Beth Cook Expands Insurance Litigation Team at Payne & Fears

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Sub-Contracted Electrical Company

    Hamptons Home Up for Foreclosure That May Set Record

    Connecticut Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade

    U.S., Canada, Mexico Set New Joint Clean-Energy Goal

    What Contractors Can Do to Address Rising Material Costs

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    Insureds Survive Summary Judgment on Coverage for Hurricane Loss

    Endorsements Preclude Coverage for Alleged Faulty Workmanship

    Insurance for Large Construction Equipment Such as a Crane

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Named 2019 Super Lawyers

    Whose Lease Is It Anyway: Physical Occupancy Not Required in Landlord-Tenant Dispute

    Congratulations to Wilke Fleury’s 2024 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!!

    Pennsylvania Reconstruction Project Beset by Problems

    Delaware Settlements with Minors and the Uniform Transfer to Minor Act

    Economy in U.S. Picked Up on Consumer Spending, Construction

    Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy

    Coverage for Collapse Ordered on Summary Judgment

    White and Williams Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers

    Los Angeles Is Building a Future Where Water Won’t Run Out

    2021 California Construction Law Update

    Not to Miss at This Year’s Archtober Festival

    Basement Foundation Systems’ Getting an Overhaul

    Gordie Howe Bridge Project Team Looks for a Third Period Comeback

    Proposed Bill Provides a New Federal Tax Credit for the Conversion of Office Buildings

    You’ve Been Suspended – Were You Ready?

    Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

    Zillow Topping Realogy Shows Web Surge for Housing Market

    SCOTUS, Having Received Views of Solicitor General, Will Decide Whether CWA Regulates Indirect Discharge of Pollutants Into Navigable Water Via Groundwater

    Administration Launches 'Buy Clean' Construction Materials Push

    New OSHA Vaccination Requirements For Employers With 100 Or More Employees (And Additional Advice for California Employers)

    Landmark San Diego Hotel Settles Defects Suit for $6.4 Million

    California Court Forces Insurer to Play Ball in COVID-19 Insurance Coverage Suit

    South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship

    Update to Washington State Covid-19 Guidance

    Former Trump Atlantic City Casino Set for February Implosion

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers!

    Taylor Morrison Home Corp’ New San Jose Development

    Earth Movement Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

    Congratulations to Wilke Fleury’s 2023 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!!

    The Future of Construction Tech Is Decision Tech
    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. Drawing 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

    Floating Crane on Job in NYC's East River Has a Storied Past of Cold War Intrigue

    March 22, 2017 —
    The complex maneuver of lifting heavy prefabricated modules out of New York City's East River to build a university laboratory took careful planning and the work of one particular floating crane with a complicated past. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record
    Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

    The International Codes Development Process is Changing to Continue Building Code Modernization

    March 06, 2023 —
    Washington D.C., March 02, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The International Code Council is revising its rigorous code development process. The changes will take effect in 2024-2026 for the development of the 2027 International Codes (I-Codes) and will move the development process to an integrated and continuous three-year cycle. In the new timeline, year one will include two Committee Action Hearings for Group A Codes; year two will include two Committee Action Hearings for Group B Codes; and year three will be the joint Public Comment Hearings and Online Governmental Consensus Vote for both Group A and B Codes. The addition of the second Committee Actions Hearings in year one and two will foster a more in-depth vetting of code change proposals, allowing an opportunity for the committee members to review and evaluate the original proposals and consider the submitted responses. This also provides more opportunity for proponents to build consensus for their code change proposal and ensure the best version of their intended improvement to the existing codes. Additionally, with combined Public Comment Hearings in the third year, voting members are able to vote on all suggested changes to the next edition of the I-Codes at one time. The updated process also provides more opportunity for proposed new referenced standards to be developed and finalized on a consistent timeline regardless of the group (Group A or B) with which they are associated. About the International Code Council The International Code Council is the leading global source of model codes and standards and building safety solutions. Code Council codes, standards and solutions are used to ensure safe, affordable and sustainable communities and buildings worldwide. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Motion to Intervene in Underlying Case Denied

    August 10, 2021 —
    The Colorado Supreme Court determined that the insurer defending under a reservation of rights could not intervene in the underlying case after the insured assigned its rights to any bad faith claim against the insurer. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n, Inc., 2021 Colo. LEXIS 365 (Colo. May 24, 2021). Bolt Factory initiated a construction defects lawsuit against various contractors. Several defendants filed third-party complaints against subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Company. Auto-Owners agreed to defend its insured, Sierra Glass, under a reservation of rights. Auto-Owners declined to settle with Bolt Factory for $1.9 million, within policy limits. Sierra Glass then retains independent counsel and entered into a settlement with Bolt Factory. The settlement allowed Sierra Glass to assign its bad faith claims to Bolt Factory in exchange for the right to pursue the insurer for payment of the excess judgment rather than Sierra Glass. Instead of entering into a stipulated judgment, Bolt Factory and Sierra Glass proceeded to an abbreviated trial. 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

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Subcontractor Has No Duty to Defend Under Indemnity Provision

    July 14, 2016 —
    The Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals [see prior post here] and determined that a subcontractor did not have a duty to defend the developer upon tender under an indemnify provision in the parties' contract. Arthur v. State of Hawaii, 2016 Haw. LEXIS 155 (June 27, 2016). A simplified version of the detailed facts and procedural history follows. The case involved the wrongful death of Mona Arthur. Mona typically gardened on the hillside behind her home. She would cross a concrete drainage ditch and climb over a two-foo-high chain length fence to reach the hillside. Mona was found lying in a concrete ditch with severe head injuries, which ultimately led to her death. Her husband and estate sued for her wrongful death. Claims were asserted for negligence in failing to build a fence higher than two feet, which would have prevented Mona from having access to the garden. Defendants included the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands; Kamehameha Investment Corporation ("KIC"), the developer; Design Partners, Inc., the architect; Coastal Construction Company, the general contractor; and Sato and Associates, the civil engineer. The second amended complaint sought punitive damages against KIC. 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

    Second Circuit Clarifies What Must Be Alleged to Establish “Joint Employer” Liability in the Context of Federal Employment Discrimination Claims

    March 14, 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 or construction managers 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. 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. This week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Felder v. United States Tennis Association, et al., 19-1094, 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. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. O’Connor, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. 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

    Court Finds That Split in Underground Storage Tank is Not a Covered Collapse

    July 13, 2017 —
    In Tustin Field Gas & Food v. Mid-Century Ins. Co. (No. B268850, filed 7/3/17), a California appeals court ruled that a split in an underground storage tank, caused by the tank sitting on a rock for years, was not a covered “collapse” as a matter of law. Tustin Field owned a gas station in Palm Springs. The installer of the underground storage tanks did not follow the manufacturer’s instructions to bury them in pea gravel or crushed rock. Instead, the installer just dug a hole, placed the tanks into that hole, and then covered them with “native soil” containing rocks, boulders and other debris. The tanks were double-walled, steel with a fiberglass sheath. Sixteen years after installation, testing revealed that the fiberglass sheath on one tank was no longer intact. The tank was excavated and the fiberglass sheath was found to be cracked from the tank sitting on a nine-inch boulder. The insured paid to have the crack repaired and made a claim for the cost of excavating and repairing the tank. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Restaurant and Bar Fire Caused by Electric Defect

    February 04, 2014 —
    A fire at McGill’s Restaurant and Bar located in Schuyler, New York, resulted in “a total loss” according to the Little Fall Times. Schuyler Fire Chief Don Kane told the Little Fall Times, “no one was inside the building at the time of the fire, as the bar had closed at 2:30 a.m.” and the fire was reported at 3:52 a.m. Weather hindered the firefighters abilities to deal with the situation as “a small squall moved through the area.” An investigation concluded that an “electrical malfunction is to blame,” reported the Utica Observer-Dispatch. The Herkimer County Office of Emergency Services stated that the “fire was caused by an electrical defect within the base of the front wall.” The restaurant owner, who leased the building, “did not carry fire loss insurance for his business,” though the “building owner was insured,” according to the Utica Observer-Dispatch. Read the full story at The Little Falls Times... Read the full story at The Utica Observer-Dispatch... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Admissibility of Expert Opinions in Insurance Bad Faith Trials

    November 04, 2019 —
    In 2010, Hansen Construction was sued for construction defects and was defended by three separate insurance carriers pursuant to various primary CGL insurance policies.[i] One of Hansen’s primary carriers, Maxum Indemnity Company, issued two primary policies, one from 2006-2007 and one from 2007-2008. Everest National Insurance Company issued a single excess liability policy for the 2007-2008 policy year, and which was to drop down and provide additional coverage should the 2007-2008 Maxum policy become exhausted. In November 2010, Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primarily policy but agreed to defend under the 2006-2007 primarily policy. When Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primary policy, Everest National Insurance denied under its excess liability policy. In 2016, pursuant to a settlement agreement between Hansen Construction and Maxum, Maxum retroactively reallocated funds it owed to Hansen Construction from the 2006-2007 Maxum primary policy to the 2007-2008 Maxum primary policy, which became exhausted by the payment. Thereafter, Hansen Construction demanded coverage from Everest National, which continued to deny the claim. Hansen Construction then sued Everest National for, among other things, bad faith breach of contract. In the bad faith action, both parties retained experts to testify at trial regarding insurance industry standards of care and whether Everest National’s conduct in handling Hansen Construction’s claim was reasonable. Both parties sought to strike the other’s expert testimony as improper and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com