BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering 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


    Strict Liability or Negligence? The Proper Legal Standard for Inverse Condemnation caused by Water Damage to Property

    A Brief Primer on Perfecting Your Mechanics Lien When the Property Owner Files Bankruptcy

    Pennsylvania Modular Home Builder Buys Maine Firm

    CA Supreme Court Permits Insurers to Bring Direct Actions Seeking Reimbursement of Excessive Fees Against Cumis Counsel Under Limited Circumstances

    Allen, TX Board of Trustees Expected to Approve Stadium Repair Plans

    Environmental Justice: A Legislative and Regulatory Update

    Trends: “Nearshoring” Opportunities for the Construction Industry

    Building Group Has Successful 2012, Looks to 2013

    Louisiana Court Applies Manifestation Trigger to Affirm Denial of Coverage

    Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions – Changes and Claims

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

    Court Finds that Subcontractor Lacks Standing to Appeal Summary Judgment Order Simply Because Subcontractor “Might” Lose at Trial Due to Order

    Construction Litigation—Battles on Many Fronts

    This Times Square Makeover Is Not a Tourist Attraction

    Reasons to Be Skeptical About a Millennial Homebuying Boom in 2016

    Federal Court Again Confirms No Coverage For Construction Defects in Hawaii

    2023’s Bank Failures: What Contractors, Material Suppliers and Equipment Lessors Can Do to Protect Themselves

    Boston’s Tunnel Project Plagued by Water

    Evergrande’s Condemned Towers on China’s Hawaii Show Threat

    The Right to Repair Act Isn’t Out for the Count, Yet. Homebuilders Fight Back

    Insurance Policy’s “No Voluntary Payment” Clauses Lose Some Bite in Colorado

    Arkansas Federal Court Fans the Product Liability Flames Utilizing the Malfunction Theory

    Kiewit-Turner Stops Work on VA Project—Now What?

    Updated 3/13/20: Coronavirus is Here: What Does That Mean for Your Project and Your Business?

    Hunton Insurance Practice, Partners Recognized by The Legal 500

    Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Depreciation Claims

    D.R. Horton Earnings Rise as Sales and Order Volume Increase

    LaGuardia Airport Is a Mess. An Engineer-Turned-Fund Manager Has a Fix

    Design-build Trends, Challenges and Risk Mitigation

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    Lewis Brisbois Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for Insurance Law, Mass Tort/Class Actions Defense, Labor & Employment Litigation, and Environmental Law in 2024 Best Law Firms®

    Broker Not Negligent When Insured Rejects Additional Coverage

    Prevent Costly Curb Box Damage Due on New Construction Projects

    Newmeyer Dillion Secures Victory For Crown Castle In Years-Long Litigation With City Council Of Piedmont Over Small Cell Wireless Telecommunications Sites

    Everyone's Moving to Seattle, and It's Stressing Out Sushi Lovers

    The Law of Patent v Latent Defects

    The Proposed House Green New Deal Resolution

    Sometimes You Just Need to Call it a Day: Court Finds That Contractor Not Entitled to Recover Costs After Public Works Contract is Invalidated

    California Case Is a Reminder That Not All Insurance Policies Are Alike Regarding COVID-19 Losses

    Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Agent May Be Liable for Failing to Submit Claim

    It’s a Jolly Time of the Year: 5 Tips for Dealing with Construction Labor Issues During the Holidays

    Residential Construction Surges in Durham

    Hudson River PCB Cleanup Lands Back in Court

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

    Housing-Related Spending Makes Up Significant Portion of GDP

    Approaching Design-Build Projects to Avoid (or Win) Disputes

    Wisconsin Court Enforces Breach of Contract Exclusion in E&O Policy

    How Helsinki Airport Uses BIM to Create the Best Customer Experience

    Mark Van Wonterghem To Serve as Senior Forensic Consultant in the Sacramento Offices of Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.

    Evaluating Construction Trends From 2023 and Forecasting For 2024
    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

    Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot and "Virus": One of These Things is Not Like the Other

    November 02, 2020 —
    The Hartford’s so-called virus exclusion in its commercial property forms is getting a workout, and policyholders now have an argument that may help their cases move past the pleadings stage. A U.S. District Court in Florida has deemed the exclusion ambiguous and denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss.1 The exclusion applies to “presence, growth, proliferation, spread, or any activity of ’fungi’, wet rot, dry rot, bacteria or virus.”2 The Court held that the parties did not necessarily intend to exclude a pandemic. In Urogynecology, the plaintiff sought coverage for the loss of the usefulness and functionality of its business location due to the Florida Governor’s shutdown order. The policy contained a 'fungi', wet rot, dry rot, bacteria, or virus” exclusion.3 The carrier moved to dismiss, and the plaintiff argued that the exclusion only applied if COVID-19 was present on-site, which was not the case. The Court addressed none of the issues regarding direct physical loss and instead decided the motion on the fungi exclusion. The Court held the exclusion ambiguous because the exclusion of virus “does not logically align with the grouping of the virus exclusion with other pollutants such that the Policy necessarily anticipated and intended to deny coverage for these kinds of business losses.”5 In addition, the Court stated that pollution case law was not on point because “none of the cases dealt with the unique circumstances of the effect COVID-19 has had on our society – a distinction this Court considers significant.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hugh D. Hughes, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Mr. Hughes may be contacted at hdh@sdvlaw.com

    Colorado Nearly Triples Damages Caps for Cases Filed in 2025, Allows Siblings to File Wrongful Death Claims

    July 22, 2024 —
    Denver, Colo. (June 13, 2024) - On June 3, 2024, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed HB24-1472 to increase the damages caps for personal injury and wrongful death claims. The law nearly triples the amounts available to plaintiffs, which will continue to increase for inflationary adjustments beginning in 2028 and every two years thereafter. These new damages caps affect not only claims that accrue in 2025 and beyond, but they also change the caps for any civil cases filed on or after January 1, 2025. This law was enacted as a compromise to a ballot measure that would have removed any cap on damages. The new caps are as follows:
    • The cap on noneconomic damages for personal injuries will be $1.5 million.
    • The cap on noneconomic damages for wrongful death will be $2.125 million.
    Plaintiffs are likely to delay filing new actions through the rest of 2024 as long as they are not up against a statute of limitations deadline. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Amy Johnson, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Johnson may be contacted at Amy.Johnson@lewisbrisbois.com

    Eighth Circuit Rejects Retroactive Application of Construction Defect Legislation

    September 17, 2014 —
    The Eighth Circuit refused to retroactively apply an Arkansas statute establishing coverage for faulty workmanship. J-McDaniel Const. Co., Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14911 (8th Cir. Aug. 4, 2014). The homeowners sued J-McDaniel for faulty workmanship in constructing their home. The defective construction work was performed by subcontractors. Mid-Continent refused to defend or indemnify J-McDaniel. The insured sued Mid-Continent. The district court dismissed the claim pursuant to Essex Ins. Co. v. Holder, 261 S.W. 3d 456, 460 (Ark. 2008). In Essex, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that defective workmanship resulting in damages only to the work product itself was not an occurrence. Although The Arkansas legislature overruled Essex by statute, the district court found that the Arkansas case law barred retroactive application of the statute. 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

    Blackstone to Buy Chicago’s Willis Tower for $1.3 Billion

    March 19, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- Blackstone Group LP agreed to buy Chicago’s Willis Tower, the second-tallest building in the U.S., and plans to upgrade the retail and observatory space in a bet on growth in the city. The price was $1.3 billion, a record for a Chicago office building, according to Blackstone executives. The sellers of the 110-story skyscraper, formerly known as Sears Tower, are a group including New York-based investors Joseph Chetrit and Joseph Moinian, and American Landmark Properties Ltd. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hui-yong Yu, Bloomberg
    Ms. Yu may be contacted at hyu@bloomberg.net

    Haight’s Stevie Baris Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Northern California Rising Stars

    July 19, 2021 —
    Congratulations to Stevie Baris who was selected to the Super Lawyers 2021 Northern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stevie B. Baris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Baris may be contacted at sbaris@hbblaw.com

    Eighth Circuit Affirms Judgment for Bad Faith after Insured's Home Destroyed by Fire

    January 21, 2019 —
    The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that the insurer acted in bad faith when it denied the insured's claim based upon misrepresentations in the application after destruction of his house by fire. Hayes v. Metropolitan Pro. and Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31813 (8th Cir. Nov. 9, 2018). Hayes' home was insured by Met under a homeowner's policy. Hayes used the detached garage as part of a home base for his plumbing business. He also rented out the second and third levels of the residence to a tenant and her two children. When Hayes applied for the policy in 2007, Met argues he indicated on the application that the premises were not used to conduct business, and were not used as rental property. 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

    Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado

    June 28, 2021 —
    On May 24, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court published its decision in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n.[1] There, the Colorado Supreme Court was tasked with answering whether an insurer, who is defending its insured under a reservation of rights, is entitled to intervene as of right under C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) where the insured enters into a Nunn agreement with a third-party claimant, but rather than entering into a stipulated judgment, agrees with the third party to proceed via an uncontested trial to determine liability and damages. Interestingly, however, while the Court ultimately answered the above question in the negative, the real lesson from the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is that Colorado litigants should not seek a trial court’s blessing as to liability and damages through non-adversarial proceedings when using Nunn-Agreements. Or, as articulated in Justice Carlos Samour’s vociferous dissenting opinion, Colorado litigants desiring to enter into a Nunn-Agreement should not proceed with a non-adversarial hearing, as doing so is “offensive to the dignity of the courts,” constitutes a “bogus,” “faux,” “sham” and “counterfeit” proceeding, and the hearing provides “zero benefit.” By way of background, the case arrived in front of the Colorado Supreme Court based on the following fact pattern. A homeowner association (Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc.) (“Association”) brought construction defect claims against a variety of prime contractors and those contractors subsequently brought third-party construction defect claims against subcontractors. One of the prime contractors assigned their claims against a subcontractor by the name Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra”) to the Association. The other claims between the additional parties settled. On the eve of trial involving only the Association’s assigned claims against Sierra, the Association made a settlement demand to Sierra for $1.9 million. Sierra asked its insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance, Co. (“AOIC”), which had been defending Sierra under a reservation of rights letter, to settle the case for that amount, but AOIC refused. This prompted Sierra to enter into a “Nunn-Agreement” with the Association whereby the case would proceed to trial, Sierra would refrain from offering a defense at trial, the Association would not pursue any recovery against Sierra for the judgment, and Sierra would assign any insurance bad faith claims it may have had against AOIC to the Association. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Meyer may be contacted at meyer@hhmrlaw.com

    Boston Water Main Break Floods Trench and Kills Two Workers

    October 27, 2016 —
    Two workers died in Boston on Friday afternoon after a water main break flooded the trench where they were working, according to the Boston Fire Dept. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin Rice, Engineering News-Record
    Mr. Rice may be contacted at enrmidatlanticeditor@enr.com