BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building 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 custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness construction
    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


    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

    Best Practices for ESI Collection in Construction Litigation

    New WOTUS Rule

    6 Ways to Reduce Fire Safety Hazards in BESS

    Update: New VOSH Maximum Penalties as of July 1

    Miller Act CLAIMS: Finding Protections and Preserving Your Rights

    Right to Repair Reform: Revisions and Proposals to State’s “Right to Repair Statutes”

    Don’t Waive Your Right to Arbitrate (Unless You Want To!)

    New 2021 ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey Standards Effective February 23, 2021

    Patent or Latent: An Important Question in Construction Defects

    New Zealand Using Plywood Banned Elsewhere

    Modification: Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor’s Employee

    HHMR is pleased to announce that David McLain has been selected as a 2020 Super Lawyer

    The Little Ice Age and Delay Claims

    Gen Xers Choose to Rent rather than Buy

    Green Construction Claims: More of the Same

    Occurrence-Based Insurance Policies and Claims-Made Insurance Policies – There’s a Crucial Difference

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Special Events

    Philadelphia Revises Realty Transfer Tax Treatment of Acquired Real Estate Companies

    Texas covered versus uncovered allocation and “legally obligated to pay.”

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (9/4/24) – DOJ Sues RealPage, Housing Sales Increase and U.S. Can’t Build Homes Fast Enough

    General Liability Alert: A Mixed Cause of Action with Protected and Non-Protected Activity Not Subject to Anti-SLAPP Motion

    The Word “Estimate” in a Contract Matters as to a Completion Date

    Construction Defects not Creating Problems for Bay Bridge

    Blog Completes Sixteenth Year

    Coverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not Covered

    Summary Judgment Granted to Insurer for Hurricane Damage

    Perez Broke Records … But Should He Have Settled Earlier?

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” and Tier 2 for Los Angeles and Orange County by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2022

    Fifth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment Award to Insurer on Hurricane Damage Claim

    "Occurrence" May Include Intentional Acts In Montana

    SIG Earnings Advance 21% as U.K. Construction Strengthens

    The Increasing Trend of Caps in Construction Contracts and Negotiating Them

    Notice of Completion Determines Mechanics Lien Deadline

    Pennsylvania Modular Home Builder Buys Maine Firm

    Making Construction Innovation Stick

    Dot I’s and Cross T’s When It Comes to Construction Licensure Requirements

    Another Reminder that Contracts are Powerful in Virginia

    Don’t Ignore the Dispute Resolution Provisions in Your Construction Contract

    Caution to GCs! An Exception to Privette Can Leave You Open to Liability

    Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

    In Colorado, Primary Insurers are Necessary Parties in Declaratory Judgment Actions

    Claims for Breach of Express Indemnity Clauses Subject to 10-Year Statute of Limitations

    Idaho Business Review Names VF Law Attorney Brittaney Bones Women of the Year Honoree

    Risk-Shifting Tactics for Construction Contracts

    Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Clarifies Pennsylvania’s Strict Liability Standard

    Michigan Lawmakers Pass $4.7B Infrastructure Spending Bill

    Are We Having Fun Yet? Construction In a Post-COVID World (Law Note)

    Construction Law Alert: A Specialty License May Not Be Required If Work Covered By Another License

    Massive Fire Destroys Building, Firefighters Rescue Construction Worker
    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

    Bailout for an Improperly Drafted Indemnification Provision

    February 11, 2019 —
    A recent opinion came out that held that even though an indemnification provision in a subcontract was unenforceable per Florida Statute s. 725.06, the unenforceable portion is merely severed out of the indemnification clause leaving the rest of the clause intact. In essence, an otherwise invalid indemnification clause is bailed out by this ruling (which does not even discuss whether this subcontract had a severability provision that states that if any portion of any provision in the subcontract is invalid, such invalid portion shall be severed and the remaining portion of the provision shall remain in full force and effect). This opinion arose from a construction defect case, CB Contractxors, LLC v. Allens Steel Products, Inc.,43 Fla.L.Weekly D2773a (Fla. 5thDCA 2018), where the general contractor, sued by an association, flowed down damages to subcontractors based on the contractual indemnification provision in the subcontracts. Subcontractors moved to dismiss the contractual indemnification claim because it was not compliant with Florida Statute s. 725.06. The indemnification provision required the subcontractors to indemnify the general contractor even for the general contractors own partial negligence, but failed to specify a monetary limitation on the extent of the indemnification as required by Florida Statute s. 725.06. (The indemnification clause in the subcontract was the standard intermediate form of indemnification that required the subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor for claims regardless of whether the claims were caused in part by the general contractor.) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Recovery Crews Swing Into Action as Hurricane Michael Departs

    October 23, 2018 —
    By the time the blustery remnants Hurricane Michael departed the East Coast around mid day on Oct. 12, with one last lashing of eastern regions from Virginia to New York, the trail of woe stretched from the Florida Panhandle through the southeastern states and well up the Eastern Seaboard. Authorities report the death toll stood at 16, with victims in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. Reprinted courtesy of ENR reporters Tom Sawyer, Luke Abaffy, Thomas F. Armistead and Jim Parsons Mr. Sawyer may be contacted at sawyert@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California’s Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements: Public Works and AB 3018, What You Need to Know

    December 09, 2019 —
    Do you have the proper skilled and trained workforce for your construction projects? If you take on public works projects in California, you may not be in compliance with the new changes in the law. To avoid civil penalties or nonpayment and potentially being precluded from future bids on public works contracts, you must critically review your team and proposal prior to accepting an award. Once awarded a public contact requiring a skilled and trained workforce, diligent reporting practices and oversight are required to maintain compliance. Compliance with California’s skilled and trained workforce requirements for contractors, engineers, architects, design professionals, and suppliers competing for public works construction projects in California is mandated through enforcement with the enactment of AB 3018. Signed by Governor Brown in his last legislative session, AB 3018 dramatically increased the penalties for non-compliance with the existing skilled and trained workforce requirements in California. The new penalties include civil fines by the Labor Commissioner up to $10,000 per month per non-compliant contractor, disqualification from bidding on future public works contract, and withholding of payment for delinquent contractors. This update provides information on California’s skilled and trained workforce requirements, identifies key issues on compliance to avoid penalties, and discusses the impact of enforcement on construction professionals’ business practices. Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani and Nicholas Krebs, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@grsm.com Mr. Krebs may be contacted at nkrebs@grsm.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction of New U.S. Homes Declines on Plunge in South

    July 23, 2014 —
    Housing starts unexpectedly declined in June to a nine-month low, led by a record plunge in the South that shows the construction industry must still overcome hurdles before it can contribute more strongly to U.S. economic growth. Work began on 893,000 homes at an annualized rate, down 9.3 percent from a 985,000 pace in May that was weaker than previously estimated, according to figures from the Commerce Department issued today in Washington. Other reports showed manufacturing was gaining steam this month and fewer Americans filed claims for jobless benefits last week as consumer sentiment hovered near this year’s high. A shortage of buildable lots and experienced construction workers, higher prices and mortgage rates that have climbed from record lows mean residential real estate will struggle to help the world’s largest economy. The figures, along with a decline in building permits, corroborate Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen’s view that progress in the housing market has been “disappointing.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Victoria Stilwell, Bloomberg
    Ms. Stilwell may be contacted at vstilwell1@bloomberg.net

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Known Loss Doctrine & Interpretation of “Occurrence”

    March 06, 2022 —
    In this final post in the Blog’s Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series, we discuss the court’s ruling on the known loss doctrine and its interpretation of “occurrence” in National Indemnity Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021). Personal injury claims against the State of Montana arose out of its alleged failure to warn Libby residents about the danger of asbestos exposure despite the State’s regulatory inspections of the Libby Mine as early as the 1950s and through the 1970s. Among other defenses, the insurer contended that there was no coverage for these claims because the asbestos claims arising out of the Libby Mine were a “known loss.” A “known loss” defense, as the court explained, is “not based upon a provision of the Policy, but a common law principle which courts have imposed upon liability policies” that “requires that losses arise without the insureds’ knowledge.” Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Michigan: Identifying and Exploiting the "Queen Exception" to No-Fault Subrogation

    May 13, 2014 —
    In Michigan, an employee’s entitlement to compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident is governed by both the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act of 1969, MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 418.801 et seq., and Chapter 31 of The Insurance Code of 1956, MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 500.3101 et seq., commonly referred to as the “no-fault act.” Polkosnik v. United Canada Ins. Co., 421 N.W.2d 241, 242 (Mich. App. 1988). PIP1 benefits payable arising from a motor vehicle accident in Michigan include, principally, (1) medical benefits unlimited in amount and duration, and (2) 85% of lost wages for up to three years. See DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, Brief Explanation of Michigan No-Fault Insurance. As of October 2013, lost wages are capped at $5,282 per month. Id. Such benefits constitute an injured worker’s “economic loss.” See generally Wood v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 668 N.W.2d 353, 355 (Mich. 2003). Michigan’s no-fault legislation is no different than other no-fault legislation in regard to its purpose: The automobile insurer pays without any right of reimbursement out of any third party tort recovery. Sibley v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch., 427 N.W.2d 528, 530 (Mich. 1988). Moreover, just like in New York, for example, “where benefits are provided from other sources pursuant to state or federal law, the amount paid by the other source reduces the automobile insurer’s responsibility.” Id. at 530. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com

    Eighth Circuit Remands to Determine Applicability of Collapse Exclusion

    January 06, 2012 —

    The Eighth Circuit determined a jury instruction regarding the applicability of the "all-risk" policy’s exclusion for "collapse" was inadequate. See KAAPA Ethanol, LLC v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22158 (8th Cir. Nov. 3, 2011).

    KAAPA had nine large, cylindrical, stainless steel tanks fabricated at its location. Soon after operations began in 2003, some of the tanks experienced unusual movement and began to shift. A geotechnical engineer found "silty clay" had been used for infill instead of compacted granular fill called for in engineering drawings. A year long plan to repair all nine tanks was implemented.

    Affiliated’s "all-risk" policy excluded damage caused by faulty workmanship. It also excluded damage caused by settling or cracking. The settling exclusion went on to provide, "This exclusion will not apply to loss or damage resulting from collapse of: a building or structure; or material part of a building or structure." Affiliated denied coverage because of the faulty workmanship and settling exclusions.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Trial Date Discussed for Las Vegas HOA Takeover Case

    February 04, 2014 —
    Jeff German of the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that Justice Department attorneys filed papers January 28th demanding the trial involving 11 defendants charged in a scheme to take over the Las Vegas Valley homeowners associations to be held no later than September 2nd. The prosecutors claimed “they have gone out of their way to ease the burden on the defense as they have turned over mountains of evidence in the past year.” However, the defense attorneys allege that they need “at least a year and likely more time” to go through the “more than 3 million pages of documents” and to create a trial strategy, according to German. The defense “asked for an initial late January 2015 trial date.” The case involves charges against “lawyers, former police officers and corrupt board members” for “packing HOA boards to gain legal and construction defect contracts for themselves.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of