BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expert
    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


    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Tar Escaping From Roof

    Lithium for Batteries from Geothermal Brine

    Proving Contractor Licensure in California. The Tribe Has Spoken

    Heat Stress Deaths Show Europe Isn’t Ready for Climate Change

    A Trio of Environmental Decisions from the Fourth Circuit

    Global Insurer Agrees to Pay COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

    It Was a Wild Week for Just About Everyone. Ok, Make that Everyone.

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

    Georgia Law: “An Occurrence Can Arise Where Faulty Workmanship Causes Unforeseen or Unexpected Damage to Other Property”

    Contractor Succeeds At the Supreme Court Against Public Owner – Obtaining Fee Award and Determination The City Acted In Bad Faith

    California Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against Builders

    Conflict of Interest Accusations may Spark Lawsuit Against City and City Manager

    Largest Dam Removal Program in US History Reaches Milestone

    Negligence Against a Construction Manager Agent

    How to Make the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive

    A Word to the Wise about Construction Defects

    Arbitration Denied: Third Appellate District Holds Arbitration Clause Procedurally and Substantively Unconscionable

    Michigan Court of Appeals Remands Construction Defect Case

    Georgia Federal Court Holds That Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage Under Liability Policy for Claims Arising From Discharge of PFAS Into Waterways

    Cape Town Seeks World Cup Stadium Construction Collusion Damages

    UK Court Rules Against Bechtel in High-Speed Rail Contract Dispute

    Contractual Indemnification Limitation on Florida Public Projects

    Hawaii Federal District Court Rejects Bad Faith Claim

    Why You May Not Want a Mandatory Mediation Clause in Your Construction Contract

    Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)

    Biggest U.S. Gas Leak Followed Years of Problems, State Says

    English v. RKK. . . The Rest of the Story

    Sensors for Smarter Construction – Interview with Laura Kassovic of MbientLab

    Mitigation, Restructuring and Bankruptcy: Small Business Tools in the Era of COVID-19

    Trends: “Nearshoring” Opportunities for the Construction Industry

    Cameron Pledges to Double Starter Homes to Boost Supply

    Licensing Mistakes That Can Continue to Haunt You

    What Happens When Dave Chappelle Buys Up Your Town

    Unfair Risk Allocation on Design-Build Projects

    Six-Month Prison Term for Role in HOA Scam

    A Year After Fatal Genoa Viaduct Collapse, Replacement Takes Shape

    The Death of Retail and Legal Issues

    Navigating Abandonment of a Construction Project

    No Conflict in Successive Representation of a Closely-Held Company and Its Insiders Where Insiders Already Possess Company’s Confidential Information

    Business Risk Exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 Found Ambiguous

    Transplants Send Nashville Home Market Upwards

    Mediation Fails In Federal Lawsuit Seeking Damages From Sureties for Alleged Contract Fraud

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    Bound by Group Builders, Federal District Court Finds No Occurrence

    Issues of Fact Prevent Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports Wounded Warrior Project at WCC Seminar

    One to Watch: Case Takes on Economic Loss Rule and Professional Duties

    Insurance Broker Stole NY Contractor's Payment, Indictment Alleges

    Another Way a Mechanic’s Lien Protects You

    Summarizing Changes to NEPA in the Fiscal Responsibility Act (P.L. 118-5)
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    May 30, 2018 —
    To understand what Toxic Mold Litigation is, it is important to first identify and understand what toxic mold is. Mold is a fungus which is essentially everywhere, and certain types of mold, known as toxic mold, may cause severe personal injuries and/or property damage. Toxic mold refers to those molds capable of producing mycotoxins which are organic compounds capable of initiating a toxic response in vertebrates. Toxic mold generally occurs because of water intrusion, from sources such as plumbing problems, floods, or roof leaks. It is this ageless life form that has spawned a new species of toxic tort claims and has had legal and medical experts debating the complex health implications that follow. Here is some information as to what toxic mold litigation is and when you should hire a lawyer for toxic mold. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Vik Nagpal, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
    Mr. Nagpal may be contacted at vnagpal@bremerwhyte.com

    Greystone on Remand Denies Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment To Bar Coverage For Construction Defects

    June 28, 2013 —
    A prior post here discussed the Tenth Circuit's decision in Greystone Constr., Inc. v. National Union Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 661 F. 3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2011). The court found a duty to defend construction defect claims where damage caused by the faulty workmanship was unintentional. The Tenth Circuit remanded for a determination on whether any policy exclusions precluded a defense or indemnity for damage arising from faulty workmanship. On remand, the district court denied National Union's Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking to establish the policy exclusions precluded its duty to defend and to indemnify. See Greystone Constr., Inc. v. v. National Union Fire & Marine ins. Co., 2013 U. S. LEXIS 46707 (D. Colo. March 31, 2013). Greystone was sued for construction defects in homes it built. The suit alleged that Greystone failed to recognize defects in the soil where the house was built. National Union refused to defend. The district court initially granted summary judgment to National Union because claims arising from construction defects were not covered. As noted above, the Tenth Circuit vacated because the damage in the underlying suit did not categorically fall outside coverage under the policy. On remand, National Union first argued there was no duty to defend based upon an exclusion precluding coverage for damage arising out of work done by subcontractors unless the subcontractors agreed in writing to defend and indemnify the insured and carried insurance with coverage limits equal to or greater than that carried by the insured. The Tenth Circuit rejected this argument because National Union had to rely on facts outside of the underlying complaint. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    New California Construction Laws for 2020

    March 09, 2020 —
    The California Legislature introduced more than 3,033 bills in the first half of the 2019-2020 session. This article summarizes some of the more important bills affecting contractors in their roles as contractors, effective January 1, 2020, unless otherwise noted. Not addressed here are many other bills that will affect contractors in their roles as businesses, taxpayers, and employers. Each of the summaries is brief, focusing on what is most important to contractors. Because not all aspects of these bills are discussed, each summary’s title is a live link to the full text of the referenced bills for those wanting to explore the details of the new laws. BIDDING & PREQUALIFICATIONS Disabled Veteran Preferences Strengthened (AB 230, Brough) The California Legislature intends that every state procurement authority meet or exceed a DVBE participation goal of a minimum of 3% of total contract value. State departments must require prime contractors to certify at the completion of each contract the amount each DVBE received from the prime contractor, among other information. This new law requires the prime contractor to provide upon request proof of the amount and percentage of work the prime contractor committed to provide to one or more DVBEs under the contract in addition to proof of payment for work done by the DVBE. Additionally, prime contractors must now obtain permission before they may replace a listed DVBE. County of San Joaquin Now Authorized to Establish Bid Preferences (AB 1533, Eggman) This new law extends to the County of San Joaquin existing law that authorizes local agencies to establish preferences for small businesses, disabled veteran businesses, and social enterprises in facilitating contract awards. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Smith Currie

    Mechanics Lien Release Bond – What Happens Now? What exactly is a Mechanics Lien and Why Might it Need to be Released?

    January 04, 2021 —
    Mechanics Lien Release Bond – What Happens Now? What exactly is a Mechanics Lien and Why Might it Need to be Released? California law entitles unpaid contractors, subcontractors, and material suppliers to record a mechanics lien on property where they performed work or supplied materials. The mechanics lien attaches to the real property as a legal interest and secures the right to payment for the work performed and materials supplied. If payment is not forthcoming the mechanics lien allows the property where the work was performed and materials supplied to be sold under court order to satisfy the debt. It is a powerful remedy against owners and their agents who do not pay for work performed and materials supplied to improve the owner’s property. A Mechanics Lien Release Bond Frees Property from a Mechanics Lien Owners typically do not wish to have their property sold out from under them. Fortunately for owners, there is a method by which a mechanics lien can be substituted for another interest and sale of the property thereby avoided. This method is through the use of a mechanics lien release bond. California Civil Code §8424 allows a property owner or contractor effected by a mechanics lien to record a mechanics lien release bond equal to 125 percent of the lien amount with the County Recorder where the mechanics lien has been recorded. The effect of this is to substitute the mechanics lien release bond for the mechanics lien itself, thereby relieving the property from the possibility of that property being sold to satisfy the debt. Instead, any payment made will come from the release bond. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Can You Really Be Liable For a Product You Didn’t Make? In New Jersey, the Answer is Yes

    December 14, 2020 —
    New Jersey has recently expanded liability for product distributors and manufacturers to products that the distributor/manufacturer did not make or sell. This alert discusses this new law and steps that distributors and manufacturers may consider to reduce their potential liability. In Whelan v. Armstrong International, Inc., the New Jersey Supreme Court held that distributors and manufacturers can be strictly liable for injuries caused by replacement parts added after the point of sale which had not been manufactured or sold by any of the defendants in the case. In Whelan, the defendants’ products had originally been sold with asbestos-containing parts. Mr. Whelan, the plaintiff, argued that asbestos-containing replacement parts were required to repair and maintain the products. The court found that because the products were designed with asbestos-containing parts, “[d]efendants had a duty to provide warnings given the foreseeability that third parties would be the source of asbestos-containing replacement components.” (Emphasis added). This reasoning, based on “foreseeability,” should give pause to all product distributors and manufacturers—even those who do not make or sell products that contain asbestos. Certainly distributors and manufacturers of products with asbestos-containing parts must take heed that they may now be liable for replacement parts that they neither manufactured nor sold. This alone is a significant holding that expands potential liability. Reprinted courtesy of James Burger, White and Williams LLP and Robert Devine, White and Williams LLP Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Law Raises Standard for Defense Experts as to Medical Causation

    September 05, 2023 —
    On July 17, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) No. 652, adding Section 801.1 to the California Evidence Code. This section provides additional requirements for expert opinions relating to medical causation. In particular, it allows a party not bearing the burden of proof to offer a contrary expert in response to an expert proffered by a party bearing the burden of proof as to medical causation who is required to opine that causation exists to a reasonable medical probability. The contrary expert may only be proffered, however, if he or she is able to opine that an alternative medical causation is one that exists to a reasonable medical probability. Section 801.1, however, does not preclude an expert witness from testifying that a specific matter cannot meet a reasonable degree of probability in the applicable field. With respect to medical causation, a “reasonable degree of probability” means that the expert is testifying that a particular event or source was more likely than not the cause of a person’s injuries. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    Defense Owed to Insured Subcontractor, but not to Additional Insured

    December 13, 2022 —
    Affirming the district court, the Eleventh Circuit agreed that the insured subcontractor was entitled to a defense against claims of faulty workmanship, but no defense was owed to the additional insured subcontractor. Cincinnati Spec. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. KNS Group, LLC, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 27949 (11th Cir. Oct. 6. 2022).  The general contractor on a project to build a casino and hotel hired GM&P Consulting and Glazing Contractors, Inc. (GM&P) to provide exterior glazing for the building. GM&P enlisted subcontractor KNS to assist it by glazing glass and installing window walls. KNS agreed to provide commercial general liability and other types of insurance, and to indemnify GM&P for liability for damages caused by any of its acts or omissions. KNS acquired a policy from Cincinnati.  The casino filed suit against the general contractor and subcontractors, alleging that GM&P installed defective "Glass Facade" and improperly installed windows. GM&P filed a Hird-party complaint against KNS due to KNS's alleged defective construction of the casino. 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

    Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben Obtains Federal Second Circuit Affirmance of Summary Judgment in Insurer’s Favor

    April 10, 2023 —
    In the underlying action, a property owner hosting a motorcycle rally was sued after a motorcycle collided with an auto near the entrance to the premises, injuring the cyclists. The cyclists sued the property owner, among others, alleging failure to supervising traffic on the adjoining roadway. The property owner tendered the claim under its CGL policy, which was endorsed with an “absolute auto exclusion,” precluding coverage for claims “arising out of or resulting from the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any…auto.” The CGL insurer disclaimed coverage based on the endorsement. In the ensuing coverage litigation, Traub Lieberman represented the insurer, and moved for summary judgment arguing that the “absolute auto exclusion” was dispositive of coverage on the facts alleged, citing case law from New York state courts enforcing similar exclusions to preclude coverage for multi-vehicle accidents. The insured argued in opposition that the outcome should be controlled by Essex Insurance Company v. Grande Stone Quarry, LLC, 82 A.D.3d 1326, 918 N.Y.S.2d 238 (3rd Dep’t 2011), in which the court declined to apply such exclusion in the case of a single-vehicle accident caused by a dangerous condition of the insured’s premises. The federal district judge disagreed with the insured’s argument in this regard, granting Traub Lieberman’s motion for summary judgment in favor of the insurer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com