BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety 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


    Revel Closing Shows Gambling Is No Sure Thing for Renewal

    It’s Time to Include PFAS in Every Property Related Release

    Architecture, Robotics, and the Importance of Human Interaction – An Interview with Prof. Kathrin Dörfler

    What Construction Contractors Should Know About the California Government Claims Act

    Gordie Howe Bridge Project Team Looks for a Third Period Comeback

    Tests Find Pollution From N.C. Coal Ash Site Hit by Florence Within Acceptable Levels

    Insurer Not Bound by Decision in Underlying Case Where No Collateral Estoppel

    Harvey's Aftermath Will Rattle Construction Supply Chain, Economists Say

    New Case Law Update: Mountain Valleys, Chevron Deference and a Long-Awaited Resolution on the Sacketts’ Small Lot

    Building Inspector Refuses to State Why Apartments Condemned

    Lake Charles Tower’s Window Damage Perplexes Engineers

    Vacant Property and the Right of Redemption in Pennsylvania

    Berlin Lawmakers Get a New Green Workspace

    Lack of Workers Holding Back Building

    Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

    No Coverage for Additional Insured

    Preparing the Next Generation of Skilled Construction Workers: AGC Workforce Development Plan

    California Appellate Court Confirms: Additional Insureds Are First-Class Citizens

    Difficulty in Defending Rental Supplier’s Claim Under Credit Application

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Reject Collapse Coverage Denied

    Appraisal Ordered After Carrier Finds Loss Even if Cause Disputed

    Look Up And Look Out: Increased Antitrust Enforcement Of Horizontal No-Poach Agreements Signals Heightened Scrutiny Of Vertical Agreements May Be Next

    Boston Team Obtains Complete Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in Professional Liability Matter

    There Was No Housing Bubble in 2008 and There Isn’t One Now

    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    Construction Industry Outlook: Building a Better Tomorrow

    Haight’s Sacramento Office Has Moved

    Building Resiliency: Withstanding Wildfires and Other Natural Disasters

    Legislative Update – The CSLB’s Study Under SB465

    Helsinki Stream City: A Re-imagining Outside the System

    Competitive Bidding Statute: When it Applies and When it Does Not

    Can Your Small Business Afford to Risk the Imminent Threat of a Cyber Incident?

    Construction Defects Lead to “A Pretty Shocking Sight”

    Dreyer v. Am. Natl. Prop. & Cas. Co. Or: Do Not Enter into Nunn-Agreements for Injuries that Occurred After Expiration of the Subject Insurance Policy

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

    London Is Falling Down and It's Because of Climate Change

    Are Construction Contract Limitation of Liability Clauses on the Way Out in Virginia?

    Michigan Claims Engineers’ Errors Prolonged Corrosion

    Doing Construction Lead Programs the Right Way

    Couple Claims Contractor’s Work Is Defective and Incomplete

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    Antidiscrimination Clause Required in Public Works and Goods and Services Contracts­ –Effective January 1, 2024

    California Supreme Court Allows Claim Under Unfair Competition Statute To Proceed

    South African Building Industry in Line for More State Support

    Kushner Company Files Suit Against Jersey City Over Delays to Planned Towers

    Florida Federal Court to Examine Issues of Alleged Arbitrator Conflicts of Interests in Panama Canal Case

    Buyer Alleges Condo Full of Mold and Mice

    Big Policyholder Win in Michigan

    Parties Can Agree to Anything In A Settlement Agreement………Or Can They?

    Treble Damages Awarded After Insurer Denies Coverage for Collapse
    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

    Ex-Construction Firm That Bought a $75m Michelangelo to Delist

    January 08, 2019 —
    A Chinese construction firm-turned-art-collector will be delisted from the Nasdaq effective Friday, following a 260 percent run-up in its stock price this fall. Shares in Yulong Eco-Materials Ltd. soared after the company agreed to buy the “Millennium Sapphire” for $50 million in October and a “Crucifixion” painting for $75 million in November. The firm was formerly a “vertically integrated manufacturer of eco-friendly building products located in the city of Pingdingshan in Henan Province, China," according to a company filing. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Drew Singer, Bloomberg

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Indeed, You Just Design ‘Em”

    April 29, 2024 —
    Seeking to be extracted from personal injury litigation initiated by a laborer on a project in New Orleans, an architect sued for negligence filed a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff had “testified in his deposition that after demolishing most of one of the side walls of the vault and a smaller section of the front wall, he was instructed to stand on top of the vault's concrete ceiling in order to demolish it with a hydraulic jackhammer.” One court noted that: “Shortly after beginning that task, the entire vault structure collapsed.” Claims against the architect included assertions of “failure to monitor and supervise the execution of the plans to ensure safety at the jobsite.” The architect urged in support of its MSJ that it did not owe a duty to oversee, supervise, or maintain the construction site, or have any responsibility for the plaintiff’s safety. Summary judgment was granted to the architect by the trial court, and an appeal ensued, whereupon the appellate court reversed. That intermediate court found that potential intervening knowledge of the architect of a potentially unsafe demolition practice created an issue of material fact. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Hawaii Supreme Court Says Aloha to Insurers Trying to Recoup Defense Costs From Policyholders

    January 02, 2024 —
    The Hawaii Supreme Court emphatically rejected insurer efforts to seek reimbursement of defense costs absent a provision in the policy providing for such reimbursement in St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Bodell Construction Company, No. SCCQ-22-0000658, 2023 WL 7517083, (Haw. Nov. 14, 2023). The state high court’s well-reasoned decision rests on bedrock law regarding insurance policy construction and application, follows the nationwide trend of courts compelling insurers to satisfy their contractual obligations in full, and should carry great weight as other jurisdictions continue to debate the same issue. In Bodell, the Hawaii Supreme Court joined the swelling ranks of courts recognizing that an insurer may not use a reservation of rights to create the extra-contractual “right” to recoup already paid defense costs for a claim on which the insurer ultimately owes no coverage. See, e.g., Am. & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Jerry’s Sport Ctr., Inc., 2 A.3d 526 (Pa. 2010). Other jurisdictions, such as California, will permit an insurer to seek reimbursement from a policyholder for defense costs incurred in defending claims later determined to be uncovered. See Buss v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 35 (1997) (holding insurers have a right to reimbursement of defense costs incurred for noncovered claims). Reprinted courtesy of Lara Degenhart Cassidy, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Cassidy may be contacted at lcassidy@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    L.A. Makes $4.5 Billion Bet on Olympics After Boston Backs Out

    August 26, 2015 —
    Los Angeles’s dreams of hosting the Olympic Games for a third time could get a boost from the City Council this week, even as officials try to assure taxpayers that they won’t be forced to bail out a botched effort. The council is expected to vote Wednesday on giving Mayor Eric Garcetti power to negotiate with the U.S. Olympic Committee to bring the 2024 games to Los Angeles and require the city to pay for cost overruns. Los Angeles emerged as the U.S. contender for the games after Boston withdrew from consideration in July. Opponents there warned that taxpayers were on the hook if the nearly month-long sporting event lost money. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James Nash, Bloomberg

    Washington State May Allow Common Negligence Claims against Construction Professionals

    November 20, 2013 —
    Lane Powell, a law firm with offices in Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and London has issued a construction law update on a recent decision of the Washington Supreme Court. The case involved a development firm that sued its engineering firm. The developer had gained preliminary approval to develop two short plats, and after the approvals expired, sought the assistance of the engineering firm in regaining approval. Eventually, the developer lost the plats to foreclosure and sued the engineering firm. The Washington Supreme Court rejected most of the developer’s claims in the case, but sent the negligence claims back to the trial court. The Lane Powell construction law update notes that “the record didn’t adequately establish the scope of the professional obligations incorporated into the contract, the court refused to determine if any of the engineer’s duties to the plaintiffs arose independently of the contract.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Economic Loss Rule Bars Claims Against Manufacturer

    November 02, 2020 —
    The economic loss rule lives to bar a claim against a product manufacturer in a real estate transaction. In a products liability action, there needs to be personal injury or property damage, other than to the property itself, in order to recover economic damages. Otherwise, the economic loss rule will bar the recovery of such economic losses when the economic losses deal to the product itself. This is important to keep in mind in any product liability action against a manufacturer. In a recent case, 2711 Hollywood Beach Condominium Assoc’n, Inc., v. TRG Holiday, Ltd., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2179a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), a condominium association purchased the condominium from the developer. Subsequently, it noticed leaks with the fire suppression system in the condominium and sued multiple parties for damages for repairs due to the leaks and the replacement of the fire suppression system. One of the parties sued in negligence and strict liability was a manufacturer of pipe fittings used in the fire suppression system. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment based on the economic loss rule and relying on the 1993 Florida Supreme Court opinion in Casa Clara Condominium Assoc’n v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 620 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 1993), holding “the economic loss rule limited a defendant’s tort liability for allegedly defective products to injuries caused to persons or damage caused to property other than the defective product itself.” 2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra. The trial court agreed with the manufacturer and granted summary judgment. On appeal, the Third District affirmed based on the economic loss rule:
    The Association bargained for, purchased and received a building; [the manufactuer’s] fittings were only a component of the FSS [fire suppression system], incorporated into the building. Applying the rule set forth in Casa Clara, the Association purchased a completed building from the developer. [The manufactuer’s] fittings were “an integral part of the finished product and, thus, did not injure ‘other’ property.” Injury to the building itself is not injury to “other” property because the product purchased by the Association was the building. See Casa Clara, 620 So. 2d at 1247. The economic loss rule therefore bars the Association’s recovery as to [the manufacturer] to the extent that it sought damages to replace the FSS [fire suppression system] and repair damage to the building.
    2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra (internal citations omitted).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Elon Musk’s Proposed Vegas Strip Transit System Advanced by City Council Vote

    January 11, 2021 —
    Elon Musk’s tunneling company Boring Co. is already building a transit system for Las Vegas convention-goers. Now, he wants to build one for the rest of the city. On Wednesday, the Las Vegas City Council voted unanimously to advance plans to dramatically expand Musk’s Loop project from a convention center transit system to a citywide network that would include hotels and, one day, potentially even the airport. The proposed expansion brings the tunnel-based transportation system as far north as Ogden Avenue, near attractions such as the Downtown Container Park and classic casinos like the Golden Nugget. Proposed stops en route include the Arts District and the Stratosphere tower, the spaceship-like landmark that is part of a hotel. The precise location of stations will be determined later in the process, according to documents submitted to the council. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah McBride, Bloomberg

    A Court-Side Seat: Coal-Fired Limitations, the Search for a Venue Climate Change and New Agency Rules that May or May Not Stick Around

    February 15, 2021 —
    This is a brief review of recent significant environmental and administrative law rulings and developments. With the change in presidential administrations, the fate of at least some of the newly promulgated rules is uncertain. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT BP PLC v. City and County of Baltimore On January 19, 2021, the Court heard oral argument in BP PLC v. City and County of Baltimore. The respondents filed a Greenhous Gas Climate Change lawsuit in state court, alleging that BP, like other energy companies, is liable for significant damage caused by the sale and promotion of petroleum products while knowing that the use of these products and the resulting release of greenhouse gases damages the environment and public property. Several similar lawsuits have been filed in state courts, pleading common law violations as well as trespass and nuisance law violations The energy companies have tried, unsuccessfully to date, to remove these cases to federal court. The petitioners argue that the federal removal statutes allow the federal courts of appeal to review the lower court’s remand, thus opening the possibility that some of the issues presented in these cases can be tried in federal court, presumably a friendlier forum. A decision on this procedural issue should be rendered in a few months. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com