BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestration
    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


    Time to Reform Construction Defect Law in Nevada

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Faulty Workmanship Claim

    Potential Construction Liabilities Contractors Need to Know

    CRH to Buy Building-Products Firm Laurence for $1.3 Billion

    White House’s New Draft Guidance Limiting NEPA Review of Greenhouse Gas Impacts Is Not So New or Limiting

    Wells Fargo Shuns Peers’ Settlement in U.S in Mortgage

    Washington State Safety Officials Cite Contractor After Worker's Fatal Fall

    Rising Construction Disputes Require Improved Legal Finance

    Major Changes in Commercial Construction Since 2009

    Homebuyers Get Break as Loan Rates Defy Fed Tapering: Mortgages

    The Biggest Thing Keeping Young Homebuyers out of the Market Isn't Student Debt

    Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud

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

    Why 8 Out of 9 Californians Don't Buy Earthquake Insurance

    Governmental Action Exclusion Bars Claim for Damage to Insured's Building

    TxDOT, Flatiron/Dragados Mostly Resolve Bridge Design Dispute

    Virginia General Assembly Helps Construction Contractors

    Congratulations 2024 DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    PCL Sues Big Bank for $30M in Claimed NJ Mall Unpaid Work

    AGC’s 2024 Construction Outlook. Infrastructure is Bright but Office-Geddon is Not

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

    Manhattan Condos at Half Price Reshape New York’s Harlem

    Colorado Court of Appeals to Rule on Arbitrability of an HOA's Construction Defect Claims

    James R. Lynch Appointed to the Washington State Capital Project Review Committee

    Chicago Aldermen Tell Casino Bidders: This Is a Union Town

    New Jersey’s Independent Contractor Rule

    Angels Among Us

    The Multigenerational Housing Trend

    Contractor Sues Supplier over Defective Products

    State of Texas’ Claims Time Barred by 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act

    PFAS: From Happy Mistake to Ubiquity to Toxic Liability (But is there coverage?)

    Washington High Court Holds Insurers Bound by Representations in Agent’s Certificates of Insurance

    Manhattan Bargain: Condos for Less Than $3 Million

    New Jersey Law Firm Announces $4 Million Settlement from Construction Site Accident

    City Wonders Who’s to Blame for Defective Wall

    Tokyo's Skyline Set to See 45 New Skyscrapers by 2020 Olympics

    Responding to Ransomware Learning from Colonial Pipeline

    Constructive Changes – A Primer

    "Damage to Your Product" Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Lewis Brisbois Listed as Top 10 Firm of 2022 on Leopard Solutions Law Firm Index

    NY Estimating Consultant Settles $3.1M Government Project Fraud Case

    Montana Theater Threatened by Closure due to Building Safety

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    Home Prices Up in Metro Regions

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

    A Court-Side Seat: Recent Legal Developments at Supreme and Federal Appeals Courts

    The Partial Building Collapse of the 12-Story Florida Condo

    Waiving Workers’ Compensation Immunity for Indemnity: Demystifying a Common and Scary-Looking Contract Term

    Meet BWBO’s 2024 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    Indiana Court of Appeals Holds That Lease Terms Bar Landlord’s Carrier From Subrogating Against Commercial Tenant
    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

    Ninth Circuit Finds Policy’s Definition of “Policy Period” Fatal to Insurer’s “Related Claims” Argument

    April 10, 2019 —
    Professional liability policies often include some form of a “related claims” or “related acts” provision stating that if more than one claim results from a single wrongful act, or a series of related wrongful acts, such claims will be treated as a single claim and deemed first made during the policy period in which the earliest claim was made. These provisions can have significant implications on the applicable policy and policy limits, retroactive date issues, and whether such claims were first made and reported during a particular policy period. Recently, the Ninth Circuit issued a stern reminder of how the particular policy language can effect, and in this case thwart, the intended scope of the carrier’s “related claims” provision. In Attorneys Ins. Mut. Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2019 WL 643442 (9th Cir. Feb. 15, 2019), the Ninth Circuit construed a “related claims” provision included in two consecutive lawyers professional liability policies. During both the 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 insurance policy periods, attorney J. Wayne Allen (“Allen”) was insured through his employer by Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation’s (“Liberty”) professional liability insurance. Third parties filed suit against Allen during the 2009–2010 policy period in a probate case, and a second, related civil suit during the 2010–2011 policy period. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason M. Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

    Yellen Has Scant Power to Relieve U.S. Housing Slowdown

    June 11, 2014 —
    The hesitant housing recovery has surprised and concerned Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and her colleagues at the central bank. It’s not clear how much they can do about it. While the industry is rebounding from a weather-ravaged first quarter, the pickup will probably fall short of previous projections, according to economists at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. of New York and Macroeconomic Advisers LLC in St. Louis. As a result, they trimmed their forecasts for economic growth in the second half of 2014 to about 3.25 percent from 3.5 percent. “Housing is a growing worry,” said Macroeconomic Advisers’ senior economist Ben Herzon. Mr. Miller may be contacted at rmiller28@bloomberg.net; Ms. Stilwell may be contacted at vstilwell1@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rich Miller and Victoria Stilwell, Bloomberg

    Ignoring Employee ADA Accommodation Requests Can Be Costly – A Cautionary Tale

    March 29, 2021 —
    As all employers should well know by now, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and many state and local counterparts may require employers to engage in an interactive process in response to a disabled employee’s request for a workplace accommodation. A recent ruling by the First Circuit Court of Appeals illustrates why employers have a very strong financial incentive to be proactive in adopting and rigorously enforcing their disability accommodation policies. In Burnett v. Ocean Properties, decided on February 2, 2021, a wheelchair user employed by a hotel chain call center complained internally that the office’s entrance was not accessible to him. It had heavy doors beyond which was a downward slope that caused the plaintiff’s wheelchair to roll backwards as the door closed on him, requiring him to exert greater force as he struggled to enter. He asked that push-button automatic doors be installed. The employer did not take any meaningful steps to address the complaint with the plaintiff. Eventually he was injured as he tried to open the door. Still, the employer did not follow up on his accommodation request. The plaintiff eventually filed an administrative charge with the Maine Human Rights Commission. The employer met with the plaintiff at that time, but claimed lack of familiarity with ADA compliance requirements and took no action to address the complaint. The plaintiff eventually resigned and filed suit in federal court when the administrative process was completed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Peter Shapiro, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Shapiro may be contacted at Peter.Shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com

    Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Strikes a Deathblow to Substantial Factor Causation in Most Cases; Is Asbestos Litigation Next?

    March 22, 2021 —
    In Doull v. Foster, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) addressed the proper causation standard in a medical malpractice case. In reaching this issue, the SJC reached far beyond the medical malpractice case before it. The SJC concluded that the substantial factor test for causation, which had been regularly employed in the Commonwealth for decades, was “unnecessarily confusing.” In doing so, the SJC effectively ended the use of the substantial factor test in all negligence cases going forward, except in toxic tort litigation. However, the SJC openly questioned its usefulness in toxic tort litigation and all but welcomed a direct challenge to its use there. Reprinted courtesy of Christian J. Singewald, White and Williams LLP, Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP and Timothy J. Keough, White and Williams LLP Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Keough may be contacted at keought@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Earth Movement Exclusion Bars Coverage

    March 19, 2015 —
    Damage to the YMCA recreation center was not covered due to application of the earth movement exclusion. YMCA of Pueblo v. Secura Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15249 (D. Colo. Feb. 6, 2015). On October 11, 2013, the insureds discovered a leaking water line in the men's shower, where one of the shower's on/off valves had detached from the water pipe behind the wall. The leak was repaired the same day. On October 13, 2013, the pool deck near the therapy pool and surrounding block walls shifted and collapsed. The insurer admitted there was damage to the property. Several leaks were discovered in the pipes under and near the therapy pool, and the pool lost several inches of water. 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

    Michigan Court of Appeals Remands Construction Defect Case

    February 14, 2022 —
    After its prior decision holding there was no coverage for faulty workmanship was remanded by the Michigan Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court. Skanska United States Bldg. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contrs., 2021 Mich. App. LEXIS 7336 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2021). The post summarizing the Supreme Court decision is here. Skanska USA Building was the construction manager on a renovation project at a medical center. Skanska subcontracted the heating and cooling portion of the project to defendant M.A.P. MAP held a CGL policy from Amerisure. Skanska and the medical center were named as additional insureds. MAP installed a steam boiler and related piping for the heating system. When completed, the heating system did not function properly. MAP installed some of the expansion joints backwards, causing damage to concrete, steel, and the heating system. 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

    Manufacturer of Asbestos-Free Product May Still Be Liable for Asbestos Related Injuries

    July 30, 2015 —
    In Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (No. B252566, filed June 18, 2015), the Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a manufacturer of a brake grinding machine. The Court cited an exception to the general rule that manufacturers may not be held liable, under a strict products liability theory, where the plaintiff’s injuries arise from other products that are used in conjunction with the defendant’s product. Plaintiff and appellant, Michael Sherman, was an automobile mechanic from 1962 to 1977. Mr. Sherman alleged that during this period he used an arcing machine, which abraded brake linings by means of sand paper moving at high speeds. Sherman alleged the machine released asbestos dust, which he then brought home, exposing his wife Debra Sherman to asbestos. Ms. Sherman developed mesothelioma and passed away from exposure to the asbestos dust carried home by her husband. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, R. Bryan Martin and Lee Marshall of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Mr. Marshall may be contacted at lmarshall@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Wildfire Threats Make Utilities Uninsurable in US West

    August 12, 2024 —
    Trinity Public Utilities District’s power lines snake through the lower reaches of the Cascade Range, a rugged, remote and densely forested terrain in Northern California that has some of the highest wildfire risk in the country. But for several years, the company has been without insurance to protect it from such a threat. Trinity’s equipment was blamed for causing a 2017 wildfire that destroyed 72 homes and three years later its insurer, a California public agency called the Special District Risk Management Authority, told the utility that it would no longer cover it for fires started by its electrical lines. Trinity could find no other takers. The utility’s exposure comes as wildfires are already flaring up across the US West in what could be a dangerous and prolonged fire season. “If a fire were to start now that involved one of our power lines, it would likely bankrupt the utility,” said Paul Hauser, general manager of the local government-owned utility that serves about 13,000 rural customers in Trinity County, 200 miles (322 kilometers) north of Sacramento. That’s because without insurance, a lawsuit could put the utility on the hook to pay for damages to private homes and businesses, which could easily top the utility’s annual revenue of about $16 million. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mark Chediak, Bloomberg