BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction 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


    Colombia's $15 Billion Road Plan Bounces Back From Bribe Scandal

    Manhattan Condo Lists for Record $150 Million

    Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

    New York Developer gets Reprieve in Leasehold Battle

    Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate

    Be Careful with “Green” Construction

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/31/24) – International Homebuying Shrinks Commercial Real Estate Focus on Sustainability, and U.S. Banks Boost Provisions for Credit Losses

    Building 47 Bridges in Two Years

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    On the Ten Year Anniversary of the JOBS Act A Look-Back at the Development of Crowdfunding

    The 2019 ISO Forms: Additions, Revisions, and Pitfalls

    Boston Building Boom Seems Sustainable

    Affordable Harlem Housing Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    Congratulations to BWB&O for Ranking in The U.S. News – Best Lawyers ® as “Best Law Firms”!

    California Supreme Court Rejects Third Exception to Privette Doctrine

    OSHA Again Pushes Back Record-Keeping Rule Deadline

    Why A.I. Isn’t Going to Replace Lawyers Anytime Soon

    2017 Construction Outlook: Slow, Mature Growth, but No Decline, Expected

    Collapse of Breezeway Attached to Building Covered

    FHFA’s Watt Says Debt Cuts Possible for Underwater Homeowners

    Value In Being Deemed “Statutory Employer” Under Workers Compensation Law

    Montana Federal Court Upholds Application of Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    Disputes Will Not Be Subject to Arbitration Provision If There Is No “Significant Relationship”

    On to Year Thirteen for Blog

    What Cal/OSHA’s “Permanent” COVID Standards Mean for Employers

    Balfour Taps Qinetiq’s Quinn as new CEO to Revamp Builder

    A Termination for Convenience Is Not a Termination for Default

    Lewis Brisbois Ranks 11th in Law360’s Glass Ceiling Report on Gender Parity in Law Firms

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2021 New York – Metro Super Lawyers®

    N.J. Governor Fires Staff at Authority Roiled by Patronage Hires

    Several Lewis Brisbois Partners Recognized by Sacramento Magazine in List of Top Lawyers

    Message from the Chair: Kelsey Funes (Volume I)

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    NJ Condo Construction Defect Case Dismissed over Statute of Limitations

    Construction Needs Collaborative Planning

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2021 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    Unqualified Threat to Picket a Neutral is Unfair Labor Practice

    Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Condominium Construction Defect Resolution in the District of Columbia

    Balancing Risk and Reward: The Complexities of Stadium Construction Projects

    Future Army Corps Rulings on Streams and Wetlands: Changes and Delays Ahead

    English High Court Finds That Business-Interruption Insurance Can Cover COVID-19 Losses

    How to Build a Water-Smart City

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    9th Circuit Closes the Door on “Open Shop” Contractor

    Builders FirstSource to Buy ProBuild for $1.63 Billion

    Contractor Side Deals Can Waive Rights

    SDNY Vacates Arbitration Award for Party-Arbitrator’s Nondisclosures

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

    Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage After Carbon Monoxide Leak
    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

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Denies Review of Pro-Policy Decision

    October 22, 2014 —
    According to McCarter & English, LLP, “product manufacturers relied on commercial general liability policies to defend and indemnify them for product liability claims,” however, in result of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Kvaerner Metals Division of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 908 A.2d 888 (Pa. 2006), “[i]nsurers began denying coverage to Pennsylvania companies – and companies around the country – arguing that a design or manufacturing defect was not an ‘accident.’” McCarter & English, LLP reported that “the tide has begun to turn, and product manufacturers may once again be reliably protected by from product liability claims.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Big Bertha Lawsuits—Hitachi Zosen Weighs In

    January 31, 2018 —
    In a recent article published by Seattle Business Magazine, the Japanese manufacturer of the much-maligned tunnel machine (nicknamed “Bertha”) provided its version of events and its position to the public. The interview took place after executives from Hitachi Zosen were not invited to the ceremony celebrating Bertha’s breakthrough at the end of its two-mile journey underground Seattle. Ultimately, apparently, Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), the general contractor for the project, and Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) agreed that Hitachi Zosen executives could attend the event, but they were not allowed to stand with other dignitaries on a specially-built viewing platform. The $3.2 billion Alaska Way Viaduct replacement project is embroiled in a number of legal controversies. Now that the tunnel is finished, Hitachi Zosen has finally decided to tell its side of the story. Hitachi’s problems started on December 5, 2013, three days after the tunnel-boring machine (“TBM”) hit a 120-foot long, eight-inch diameter steel well casing (the project DRB has determined that the pipe was a differing site condition), the TBM overheated and ground to a halt. The project was shut down almost two years while the TBM was being repaired. According to Hitachi Zosen, it always worked hard to get the job done. “We wanted to finish the tunnel and make Seattle happy with the results,” said Hidetoshi Hirata, the general manager for Hitachi Zosen. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

    Wildfire Smoke Threatens to Wipe Out Decades of Air Pollution Progress

    August 28, 2023 —
    The US is on track to experience its worst year for smoke exposure in decades, after wildfires in Canada sent toxic plumes drifting across the border to the Midwest and the East Coast earlier this summer. In June and July, New York and Chicago saw more “very unhealthy” and “hazardous” air quality days for fine particle pollution (PM2.5) than in the same months every year since the Environmental Protection Agency began tracking PM2.5 nationally in 2000, a Bloomberg CityLab analysis of federal data found. In Washington, DC, the number of “very unhealthy” days reached the highest in over a decade. On the EPA’s air quality index scale, these days correspond with the highest levels of public health concern. Extensive exposure to PM2.5 particles, the main pollutant found in smoke, can increase the risk of a variety of problems, including heart and respiratory disease, as well as premature death. Reprinted courtesy of Linda Poon, Bloomberg and Immanual John Milton, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Statutory Bad Faith and an Insured’s 60 Day Notice to Cure

    April 11, 2018 —
    A recent case came out in favor of an insured and against a first-party property insurer in the triggering of a statutory bad faith action. Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal in Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D679a (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) held that if an insurer pays a claim after the 60-day notice to cure period provided by Florida Statute s. 624.155(3), this “constitutes a determination of an insurer’s liability for coverage and extent of damages under section 624.155(1)(b) even when there is no underlying action.Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

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

    July 02, 2024 —
    The theory of “setoff” is an important theory in construction disputes. Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently provided worthy discussion on contractual setoffs:
    Setoffs in contract claims are governed by [Florida Statute] section 46.015(2), which provides that if a plaintiff has released “any person in partial satisfaction of the damages sued for, the court shall [setoff] this amount from the amount of any judgment to which the plaintiff would be otherwise entitled at the time of rendering judgment.” The setoff statute intends to prohibit plaintiffs from getting double recoveries.
    A setoff requires that settling and non-settling parties be jointly and severally liable. The settled damages must also be the same damages for which the setoff is sought; stated differently, a setoff is not proper where the trial damages to be setoff are separate and distinct from the settled damages.
    Close Construction, LLC v. City of Riviera Beach Utility Special District, 49 Fla.L.Weekly D1184d (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) (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

    Two More Lawsuits Filed Over COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

    April 13, 2020 —
    Two more lawsuits were filed yesterday concerning business interruption losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs, the Chickasaw and Choctaw nations, filed their lawsuits, copies of which can be found here and here, in Oklahoma state court against a litany of property insurers, led by AIG. The lawsuits seek an order that any financial losses suffered by the nations’ casinos, restaurants and other businesses as a result of the coronavirus pandemic are covered by the nations’ insurance policies. According to the complaints:
    On or about March of 2020, the United States of America became infected by COVID 19 resulting in a pandemic. As a result of this pandemic and infection, the Nation’s Property sustained direct physical loss or damage and will continue to sustain direct physical loss or damage covered by the policies, including but not limited to business interruption, extra expense, interruption by civil authority, limitations on ingress and egress, and expenses to reduce loss. As a direct result of this pandemic and infection, the Nation’s Property has been damaged, as described above, and cannot be used for its intended purpose.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
    Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

    Real Property Alert: Recording Notice of Default as Trustee Before Being Formally Made the Trustee Does Not Make Foreclosure Sale Void

    February 18, 2015 —
    In Ram, et al. v. OneWest Bank, FSB, et al. (filed 2/6/15, No. A139055), the California Court of Appeal held that a nonjudicial foreclosure sale is not void merely because the notice of default was recorded by an entity who had not yet been substituted as trustee. The court also held that because the sale was voidable, rather than void, the plaintiffs were required to allege an ability and willingness to tender their debt in addition to alleging that they were prejudiced by the irregularity in the foreclosure process. Plaintiffs were borrowers who purchased a home subject to a deed of trust. After they defaulted on their loan, nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings were initiated, and the beneficiary of the deed of trust, OneWest Bank, FSB ("OneWest"), purchased the property at the foreclosure sale. Plaintiffs sued OneWest and other entities for wrongful foreclosure, alleging that the sale was void because the entity identified as the trustee on the notice of default, Aztec Foreclosure Corporation ("Aztec"), had not been formally substituted as trustee until after the notice of default was recorded. The trial court sustained OneWest's demurrer and plaintiff appealed. Reprinted courtesy of Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Annette F. Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Mijanovic may be contacted at amijanovic@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Not All Work is Covered Under the Federal Miller Act

    May 24, 2021 —
    The recent opinion out of the Eastern District Court of Virginia, Dickson v. Forney Enterprises, Inc., 2021 WL 1536574 (E.D.Virginia 2021), demonstrates that the federal Miller Act is not designed to protect ALL that perform work on a federal construction project. This is because NOT ALL work is covered under the Miller Act. In this case, a professional engineer was subcontracted by a prime contractor to serve on site in a project management / superintendent capacity. The prime contractor’s scope of work was completed by January 31, 2019. However, the prime contractor was still required to inventory certain materials on site, which was performed by the engineer. The engineer claimed it was owed in excess of $400,000 and filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit on February 5, 2020 (more than a year after the project was completed). 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