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


    French Laundry Spices Up COVID-19 Business Interruption Debate

    One Word Makes All The Difference – The Distinction Between “Pay If Paid” and “Pay When Paid” Clauses

    Ritzy NYC Tower Developer Says Residents’ Lawsuit ‘Ill-Advised’

    Employee Handbooks—Your First Line of Defense

    Construction Recovery Still Soft in New Hampshire

    Another Guilty Plea In Nevada Construction Defect Fraud Case

    Judge Dismisses Suit to Block Construction of Obama Center

    Will European Insurers’ Positive Response to COVID-19 Claims Influence US Insurers?

    Be Careful with Mechanic’s Lien Waivers

    Details Matter: The Importance of Strictly Following Public Bid Statutes

    Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit

    Crypto and NFTs Could Help People Become Real Estate Tycoons

    Delays in Filing Lead to Dismissal in Moisture Intrusion Lawsuit

    Firm Claims Construction Defects in Hawaiian Homes

    The Benefits of Trash Talking: A Cautionary Tale of Demolition Gone Wrong

    Ohio “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

    Navigating the Construction Burrito: OCIP Policies in California’s Construction Defect Cases

    Lawmakers Strike Deal on New $38B WRDA

    FEMA Administrator Slams Failures to Prepare, Evacuate Before Storms

    Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    Is it the End of the Lease-Leaseback Shootouts? Maybe.

    Trial Victory in San Mateo County!

    Millennium’s Englander Buys $71.3 Million Manhattan Co-Op

    BIOHM Seeks to Turn Plastic Waste into Insulation Material with Mushrooms

    Liquidated Damages: Too High and It’s a Penalty. Too Low and You’re Out of Luck.

    Congratulations 2019 DE, NJ and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Liability Coverage for Claims of Publishing Secret Data Does Not Require Access by Others

    The Independent Tort Doctrine (And Its Importance)

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2023 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas By U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    What to Look for in Subcontractor Warranty Endorsements

    Exploring the Future of Robotic Construction with Dr. Thomas Bock

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

    Construction Defects Lead to “A Pretty Shocking Sight”

    House of Digital Twins

    Athletic Trainers Help Workers Get Back to the Jobsite and Stay Healthy After Injury

    Florida SB 2022-736: Construction Defect Claims

    Employee Exclusion Bars Coverage for Wrongful Death of Subcontractor's Employee

    Contractual Setoff and Application When Performance Bond Buys Out of its Exposure

    Construction Client Advisory: The Power of the Bonded Stop Notice Extends to Expended Construction Funds

    Benford’s Law: A Seldom Used Weapon in Forensic Accounting

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    Newmeyer & Dillion Appoints Partner Carol Zaist as General Counsel

    Clearly Determining in Contract Who Determines Arbitrability of Dispute

    No Coverage for Tenant's Breach of Contract Claims

    Traub Lieberman Elects New Partners for 2020

    New Orleans Is Auctioning Off Vacant Lots Online

    ENR Northwest’s Top Contractors Survey Reveals Regional Uptick

    Construction Law Firm Opens in D.C.

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    COVID-19 and Mutual Responsibility Clauses
    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

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    December 09, 2011 —

    Although the insureds disclosed flooding problems in the basement, the buyers purchased their home. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. McInerney, 2011 Ill. App. LEXIS 1130 (Ill Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2011). In a supplemental disclosure, the insureds reported that during heavy rains light seepage occurred in the basement.

    After moving in, the buyers experienced significant water infiltration and flooding in the basement. The buyers and their children also began to experience mold-related illnesses.

    The buyers sued for rescission of the contract or, in the alternative, damages. They alleged breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. In the claim for negligent misrepresentation, the buyers alleged that the insureds carelessly omitted the fact that there were material defects in the basement and foundation when they should have known of such defects.

    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

    Lease-Leaseback Battle Continues as First District Court of Appeals Sides with Contractor and School District

    August 17, 2017 —
    Earlier, we wrote about Davis v. Fresno United School District (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 261, a Fifth District California Court of Appeals decision that sent shock waves through the school construction industry and raised questions regarding the use of California’s lease-leaseback method of project delivery (Education Code sections 17400 et seq.). California’s lease-leaseback method of project delivery provides an alternative project delivery method for public school districts than the usual design-bid-build method of project delivery. Under the lease-leaseback method of project delivery, a school district leases its property to a developer, who in turn builds a school facility on the property and leases it back to the school district. One of the benefits of the lease-leaseback method of project delivery is that school districts do not need to come up with construction funds to build school facilities since they pay for the construction over time through their lease payments to the developer. Critics, however, argue that because lease-leaseback projects do not need to be competitively bid, they are ripe for cronyism between developers and school districts. In Davis, a taxpayer successfully brought suit against the Fresno Unified School District challenging the propriety of a lease-leaseback project because the entirety of the District’s “lease payments” occurred while the project was being constructed and thus, successfully argued the taxpayer, there was no “true” lease of a facility since it was under construction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2023

    January 29, 2024 —
    Federal and state courts tackled many interesting insurance-related issues this past year. Perhaps no state had a more impactful year than Illinois, which held that construction defects could constitute an occurrence, that a LEG 3 “extension” attempting to preclude coverage for faulty or defective workmanship was ambiguous as a matter of law (applying Illinois law), and that ostensibly prohibitive “catch-all exclusions” can render policy language ambiguous in favor of coverage. Other courts wrestled with procedural inquiries, such as the legal duty of a broker in providing notice to an insurer or the ability of an insured to recoup its attorneys’ fees in pursuing a coverage action against its insurer. These are merely a sampling of the impactful insurance decisions rendered in 2023. Each year, we endeavor to identify cases of general interest to our clients and the broader insurance community. Specifically, we attempt to identify trends, cases of first impression, cases illustrating conflicts among the courts, or cases dealing with emerging issues. We now proudly unveil the top 10 most influential coverage decisions of 2023 and look ahead to a few cases to watch as 2024 unfolds. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Michael A. Amato, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com Mr. Amato may be contacted at MAmato@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    June 28, 2013 —
    The federal district court assumed there was "property damage" caused by an "occurrence," but found the business risk exclusions barred coverage for construction defect claims. Hubbell v. Carney Bros. Constr., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68331 (D. Colo. May 13, 2013). The plaintiffs entered a construction contract with the insured general contractor to build a home. After the project was one-third completed, plaintiffs terminated the contract. Experts hired by plaintiffs found a failure to properly site the residence, as the house was constructed 48 feet from the intended location; violations of county height restrictions; failure to follow building plans, which were themselves deficient; and an improperly poured foundation. The experts estimated that the costs of repairing the property to be between $1.3 and $1.5 million, and that the cost of demolishing the structure and rebuilding it would be between $1.1 and $1.3 million. After plaintiff filed suit, a stipulated judgment of $1.952 million was entered. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Showdown Over Landmark Housing Law Looms at U.S. Supreme Court

    October 01, 2014 —
    Over the past four decades, U.S. courts have ruled that plaintiffs making discrimination claims under the Fair Housing Act don’t have to prove intentional bias. Civil rights advocates simply have to show that lenders, insurers, developers or government agencies acted in ways that had a “disparate,” or unequal, impact on minority groups. Now, the Supreme Court is weighing whether to hear an appeal from Texas officials who argue that intent to discriminate must be proven and that the “disparate impact” standard is too loose an interpretation of the landmark 1968 law that prohibited discrimination in housing. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greg Stohr, Bloomberg
    Mr. Stohr may be contacted at gstohr@bloomberg.net

    LA Metro To Pay Kiewit $297.8M Settlement on Freeway Job

    December 08, 2016 —
    The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) has reached an agreement with Kiewit Corp. and will pay the contractor $297.8 million for project change orders on the Interstate 405-Sepulveda Pass Widening Project, in Los Angeles. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greg Aragon, Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Washington, DC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium Expires

    August 23, 2021 —
    Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, federal and local governments have adopted varying moratoria on evictions, enacted as emergency legislative protections for tenants facing eviction. The federal moratorium on eviction, promulgated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is set to expire on July 31. While the Supreme Court recently left the moratorium in place, the Court signaled that it would likely be held unconstitutional if extended and challenged again. With the sole federal moratorium expiring, state and local protections may remain in effect; however, many of these local orders are also beginning to expire. Washington, DC’s eviction moratorium, one of the most tenant-friendly pieces of emergency legislation in the country, is one such example, beginning a phaseout process that allows the pace of evictions to slowly begin throughout 2021 before a final legislative sunset in February 2022. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council of the District of Columbia and Mayor Muriel Bowser enacted a series of public health emergency legislation. Under the Coronavirus Omnibus Emergency Amendment Act of 2020, the Council put a pause on evictions for nonpayment of rent or violations of lease provisions, prohibiting landlords from filing a complaint to evict a tenant who detained “possession of real property without right” or whose “right to possession has ceased.” Under the moratorium, the Council effectively banned residential evictions, unless a court found that a tenant had performed an “illegal act” within the rental unit, that the tenant was causing undue hardship on the health, welfare, and safety of other tenants or neighbors, or that the tenant had abandoned the premises. The moratorium and other tenant-protections were initially set to remain in place indefinitely, expiring 60 days after the end of Mayor Bowser’s declared COVID-19 emergency period. Reprinted courtesy of Zachary Kessler, Pillsbury, Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and Adam Weaver, Pillsbury Mr. Kessler may be contacted at zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Steel Component Plant Linked to West Virginia Governor Signs $1M Pollution Pact

    January 04, 2023 —
    Bluestone Coke, a 100-year old Birmingham. Ala. factory that produces a key component in steelmaking and is partially owned by West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, must pay nearly $1 million under a Dec. 9 state consent decree for violating federal clean air rules by releasing toxic emissions from coke ovens. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of