BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco 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


    A Few Things You Might Consider Doing Instead of Binging on Netflix

    Why Financial Advisers Still Hate Reverse Mortgages

    Make Sure to Properly Perfect and Preserve Construction Lien Rights

    Housing Markets Continue to Improve

    Even Toilets Aren’t Safe as Hackers Target Home Devices

    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

    Measures Landlords and Property Managers Can Take in Response to a Reported COVID-19 Infection

    Contractual Assumption of Liability Does Not Bar Coverage

    Will Millennial’s Desire for Efficient Spaces Kill the McMansion?

    Delaware River Interstate Bridge Shut to Assess Truss Fracture

    Nevada OSHA Provides Additional Requirements for Construction Employers to Address Feasibility of Social Distancing at Construction Sites

    Private Statutory Cause of Action Under Florida’s Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Business Interruption, COVID-19 Claims Under Pollution Policy Fails

    Designed to Expose: Beware Lender Certificates

    Lasso Needed to Complete Vegas Hotel Implosion

    Addenda to Construction Contracts Can Be an Issue

    At Least 46 Killed in Taiwanese Apartment Building Inferno

    Dispute Review Boards for Real-Time Dispute Avoidance and Resolution

    Why Ethiopia’s $5 Billion Dam Has Riled Its Neighbors

    Phoenix Flood Victims Can’t Catch a Break as Storm Nears

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    The Privacy Shield Is Gone: How Do I Now Move Data from the EU to the US

    Seven Trends That Impact Commercial Construction Litigation in 2021

    New York City Council’s Carbon Emissions Regulation Opposed by Real Estate Board

    Homeowner’s Policy Excludes Coverage for Loss Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Texas Windstorm Insurance Agency Under Scrutiny

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2024 “Top Lawyers” in New York by Hudson Valley Magazine

    Register and Watch Partner John Toohey Present on the CLM Webinar Series!

    The Need for Situational Awareness in Construction

    California Rejects Judgments By Confession Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1132

    Construction Defect Class Action Lawsuit Alleges National Cover-up of Pipe Defects

    Housing-Related Spending Makes Up Significant Portion of GDP

    Still Going, After All This Time: the Sacketts, EPA and the Clean Water Act

    Home Prices Rose in Fewer U.S. Markets in Fourth Quarter

    South Caroline Holds Actual Cash Value Can Include Depreciation of Labor Costs

    No Coverage Under Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    Circuit Court Lacks Appellate Jurisdiction Over Order Compelling Appraisal

    Video: Contractors’ Update on New Regulations Governing Commercial Use of Drones

    Sixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    Tenth Circuit Reverses District Court's Ruling that Contractor Entitled to a Defense

    New York Court Rules on Architect's Duty Under Contract and Tort Principles

    'Perfect Storm' Caused Fractures at San Francisco Transit Hub

    New Jersey Senate Advances Bad Faith Legislation

    Insurer Incorrectly Relies Upon "Your Work" Exclusion to Deny Coverage

    “A No-Lose Proposition?”

    Washington’s Court of Appeals Protects Contracting Parties’ Rights to Define the Terms of their Indemnity Agreements

    An Insurance Policy Isn’t Ambiguous Just Because You Want It to Be

    When Is an Arbitration Clause Unconscionable? Not Often

    Blog Completes Seventeenth Year
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Could You Be More Specific . . . About My Excess AI Coverage?

    February 23, 2017 —
    Are you a general contractor who is pretty sure that you have additional insured coverage for some stuff under your sub-subcontractor’s excess policy? Advent, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, Case No. H041934 (December 6, 2016) warns you to be a little more specific. Johnson Western Gunite was the shotcrete sub-subcontractor on a job. One of its employees—specifically, Jerry Kielty—tumbled down a stairwell, sustaining severe bodily injury thereby. Kielty filed suit against the general contractor in charge of the job—Advent, Inc.—amongst others. Kielty did not name his employer Johnson in the suit. In terms of insurance: Advent was insured under a primary insurance policy issued by Landmark American Insurance Company and an excess policy issued by Topa Insurance Company. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Yas Omidi, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Ms. Omidi may be contacted at yomidi@wendel.com

    The Contractor’s Contingency: What Contractors and Construction Managers Need to Know and Be Wary Of

    December 04, 2023 —
    Contractors and construction managers who enter into cost reimbursable contracts subject to a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) are responsible for all project costs exceeding the GMP. For this reason, it is imperative that contractors negotiate and incorporate into the GMP a financial buffer that accounts for the unanticipated project costs that are not reimbursable as change orders or costs of the work. This is where the contractor’s contingency comes into play.[1] The contractor’s contingency is a vehicle that allows contractors to mitigate some of the risks inherent in GMP contracts. When drafted properly, a contingency clause allows the contractor and only the contractor to access funds set aside by the owner to address unpredictable or unknown project costs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Skyler L. Santomartino, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Santomartino may be contacted at ssantomartino@pecklaw.com

    Be Aware of Two New Statutes that Became Effective May 1, 2021

    May 24, 2021 —
    On May 1, 2021, two new statutes that passed in 2020 and that directly affect construction became effective. I’ve used the AGC-VA description of the bills and encourage you to read the statutes in full. Prevailing Wage Starting May 1, 2021, Virginia’s new prevailing wage statute takes effect. This statute requires any contractor bidding on state procurement jobs to pay prevailing wages for work completed on the project. Further, localities and some institutes of higher education have the option to require prevailing wages on jobs. This may have the effect of significantly raising the cost of these jobs and creating market incentives which make it very difficult for many contractors to bid on this type of work, and is consistent with work performed on VDOT and federal projects. The law further requires certified payroll for any prevailing wage job and the consequence for not following the statute includes debarment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Commercial Construction Lenders Rejoice: The Pennsylvania Legislature Provides a Statutory fix for the “Kessler” Decision

    July 16, 2014 —
    In May 2012, the Pennsylvania Superior Court rendered its now infamous “Kessler” decision. The Kessler decision resulted in fundamental changes in the operation of the Pennsylvania Mechanics Lien Act as it applied to construction loans where the visible commencement of work on the project commenced before the recordation of the construction loan’s open-end mortgage. Essentially, the Kessler decision held that if the visible commence of work on the project began prior to the recording of the open-end mortgage and any loan advances were made other than for what are commonly considered “hard construction” costs, then any unpaid contractors and subcontractors who later filed mechanics’ liens would have their liens take priority over the lien of all of the construction loan advances. Subsequent to the Kessler decision, both the lending and title insurance communities in Pennsylvania have struggled mightily to structure deals around the problems created by Kessler and to provide lenders with title insurance coverage for construction loans when work commenced before the recordation of the open-end mortgage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Thomas C. Rogers, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Rogers may be contacted at rogerst@whiteandwilliams.com

    Fifth Circuit Holds Insurer Owes Duty to Defend Latent Condition Claim That Caused Fire Damage to Property Years After Construction Work

    September 21, 2020 —
    Most general liability policies only provide coverage for “property damage” that occurs during the policy period. Thus, when analyzing coverage for a construction defect claim, it is important to ascertain the date on which damage occurred. Of course, the plaintiffs’ bar crafts pleadings to be purposefully vague as to the date (or period) of damage to property. A recent Fifth Circuit decision applying Texas law addresses this coverage issue in the context of allegations of a condition created by an insured during the policy period that caused damage after the policy expired. In Gonzalez v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 969 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2020), Gilbert Gonzales (the insured) was a siding contractor. In 2013, the underlying plaintiff hired Gonzales to install new siding on his house. In 2016, the underlying plaintiff’s house was damaged in a fire. The underlying plaintiff sued Gilbert in Texas state court alleging that when Gonzalez installed the siding in 2013, he hammered nails through electrical wiring and created a dangerous condition that caused a fire three years later in 2016. At the time Gilbert performed construction work, he was insured by Mid-Continent Casualty Company. Mid-Continent disclaimed coverage to Gonzales on the basis that the complaint unequivocally alleged that property was damaged in 2016 and there were no allegations that property damage occurred prior to 2016 or was continuing in nature. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

    California Supreme Court Rejects Third Exception to Privette Doctrine

    July 03, 2022 —
    Walnut Creek, Calif. (May 25, 2022) - In Gonzalez v. Mathis (August 19, 2021) 12 Cal. 5th 29, the California Supreme Court considered whether to create a third exception to the Privette Doctrine specific to known hazards on a worksite, when a contractor cannot remedy the hazard by taking reasonable safety precautions to protect against it. Privette Background Under the Privette Doctrine, the hirer of an independent contractor generally cannot be liable for injuries sustained by the independent contractor or its employees while on the job. This is due to the “strong presumption” that the hirer delegates all responsibility for workplace safety to the independent contractor. See Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 689. Since the Privette ruling in 1993, the California Supreme Court has identified two circumstances in which the presumption may be overcome. First, the hirer may be liable when it retains control over any part of the independent contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury. Hooker v. Dept. of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 198, 213. Second, a landowner who hires an independent contractor may be liable if the landowner knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard to the property that the contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered, and the landowner failed to warn the contractor of the hazard. Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal. 4th 659, 664. Here, in the Gonzalez case, the court considered whether a landowner could be liable for known hazards on the property. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Feds Used Wire to Crack Las Vegas HOA Scam

    July 31, 2013 —
    Court documents have revealed that the FBI used informants wearing listening devices in order to uncover the plan to take over Las Vegas area homeowner associations with the intent of bilking the residents through backdoor agreements on construction defect claims. The Las Vegas Review-Journal notes one important step was when the FBI managed to get a member of the Mission Pointe board to act as an informant. The FBI informant was recruited by one of the conspirators, Sami Robert Hindiyeh. The informant eventually spoke with Benzer himself. The plan was to convince the community manager of Mission Pointe to take bribes, all part of rigging the board election. At one point, the informant was paid $20,000 for his help in convincing the manager to take part. The manager had agreed to play along in the FBI sting. Ralph Priola, one of the conspirators, told the informant that “as long as we keep everything on the up and up, that’s the way our company operates.” Later Priola asked the informant if legitimate ballots could be swapped out for those voting for Benzer’s candidates. But the election didn’t happen. The FBI raided Benzer’s office, bringing the scam to its end. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Affirmed

    June 22, 2016 —
    Today, in a precedential opinion, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of a complaint against my client that alleged that a multi-family building was constructed in violation of the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) design and accessibility requirements for disabled persons. A copy of the Opinion can be found here ( Opinion of 3rd Circuit . ) An adverse decision would have meant that my client could have been exposed to making several million dollars in alterations to its building. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Supplemental Conditions
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com