BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projects
    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


    The Heat Is On

    Claims for Breach of Express Indemnity Clauses Subject to 10-Year Statute of Limitations

    Contract’s Definition of “Substantial Completion” Does Not Apply to Third Party for Purposes of SOL, Holds Court of Appeal

    Ohio Rejects the Majority Trend and Finds No Liability Coverage for a Subcontractor’s Faulty Work

    Third Circuit Court of Appeals Concludes “Soup to Nuts” Policy Does Not Include Faulty Workmanship Coverage

    L.A. Mixes Grit With Glitz in Downtown Revamp: Cities

    Nebraska’s Prompt Pay Act for 2015

    On Rehearing, Fifth Circuit Finds Contractual-Liability Exclusion Does Not Apply

    2017 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Power & Energy - Emerging Insurance Coverage Cases of Interest

    For US Cities in Infrastructure Need, Grant Writers Wanted

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant

    Dealing with Hazardous Substances on the Construction Site

    Sochi Construction Unlikely to be Completed by End of Olympic Games

    Update Coverage for Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    Mississippi Floods Prompt New Look at Controversial Dam Project

    Bay Area Counties Issue Less Restrictive “Shelter in Place” Orders, Including for Construction

    Blog: Congress Strikes a Blow to President Obama’s “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” Executive Order 13673

    Construction Defect Bill Removed from Committee Calendar

    Brenner Base Tunnelers Conquer Peaks and Valleys in the Alps

    Dump Site Provider Has Valid Little Miller Act Claim

    GRSM Team Wins Summary Judgment in Million-Dollar HOA Dispute

    Sensors for Smarter Construction – Interview with Laura Kassovic of MbientLab

    Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending

    Feds, County Seek Delay in Houston $7B Road Widening Over Community Impact

    Florida Insurance Legislation Alert - Part I

    CGL, Builders Risk Coverage and Exclusions When Construction Defects Cause Property Damage

    Massachusetts Business Court Addresses Defense Cost Allocation and Non-Cumulation Provisions in Long-Tail Context

    The Biggest Change to the Mechanics Lien Law Since 1963

    Purse Tycoon Aims at Ultra-Rich With $85 Million Home

    In Oregon Construction Defect Claims, “Contract Is (Still) King”

    SB800 Not the Only Remedy for Construction Defects

    Contract Not So Clear in South Carolina Construction Defect Case

    A New Hope - You Now May Have Coverage for Punitive Damages in Connecticut

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2019

    Negligence Claim Not Barred by Gist of the Action Doctrine

    Claims for Negligence? Duty to Defend Triggered

    Repairing One’s Own Work and the one Year Statute of Limitations to Sue a Miller Act Payment Bond

    A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Endangered Species and Deliberative Process Privilege

    Manhattan Developer Wants Claims Dismissed in Breach of Contract Suit

    A Funny Thing Happened to My Ground Lease in Bankruptcy Court

    Court of Appeals Discusses Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in Public Works Contracting

    Drone Operation in a Construction Zone

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2022 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

    PATH Station Designed by Architect Known for Beautiful Structures, Defects, and Cost Overruns

    Fatal Crane Collapse in Seattle Prompts Questions About Disassembly Procedures

    The Role of Code Officials in the Design-Build Process

    Alabama Limits Duty to Defend for Construction Defects

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

    A New AAA Study Confirms that Arbitration is Faster to Resolution Than Court – And the Difference Can be Assessed Monetarily
    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

    General Partner Is Not Additional Insured For Construction Defect Claim

    August 26, 2015 —
    The court determined that the project owner's general partner was not an additional insured entitled to a defense and indemnity against claims for construction defects. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v,. Cypress Fairway Condo. Ass'n, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94012 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2015). Construction of the Cypress Fairway Condominium project took place in 1999 and 2000. Cypress Fairway Ltd. ("Cypress") was the owner and Vineland Partners , LLC ("Vineland") was its general partner. The general contractor was Winter Park Construction Company ("WPC"). Water intrusion and property damage occurred, but it was unclear when or whether the damage was known. Cypress' expert indicated that the damage began shortly after the end of construction. In 2004, the complex was sold to Cypress Madison Ownership Company. In 2010, the Cypress Fairway Condominium Association sued Cypress and Vineland. Count V of the underlying complaint asserted there were construction defects that Cypress and Vineland were responsible for when they owned and managed the project. Count VI alleged that Cypress and Vineland negligently supplied information which the Association relied on for the purchase of the condominiums. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Employees Versus Independent Contractors

    February 23, 2017 —
    Are the workers you employ on the job site considered employees or independent contractors? This is an important distinction that contractors and subcontractors must understand for many purposes, including federal taxes. The classification of your workers can affect their federal income, social security, and Medicare taxes, and the type of benefits they can receive. When determining whether workers should be classified as employees or independent contractors, courts generally look at three key factors: behavioral control, financial control, and the relationship of the parties. Behavior Control Behavior control concerns the business’s right to direct or control how the worker does its work. A worker is likely to be considered an employee when the business maintains behavior control. Such control can be exercised by giving instructions. This would include instructions on how, when, or where to do the work, what tools or equipment to use, who to hire to help with the work, or where to purchase the supplies to be used. Behavioral control can also occur through training. If the business provides training to tell the worker to do the work in a certain manner then the worker is more likely to be an employee. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

    Construction Delays: Which Method Should Be Used to Calculate Delay?

    July 25, 2021 —
    If you need to prove and allocate construction project delays, you should engage a scheduling consultant qualified with CPM (critical path method) analysis. You should also engage counsel to assist in preserving your rights, as well as presenting and maximing your arguments for delay. There are numerous methodologies used to quantify and allocate delay. You want to discuss the most effective analysis for your case and facts including whether you want/should use a forward-looking prospective analysis or a backward-looking retrospective analysis that factors in as-built data. In doing so, you want to make sure you understand the pros and cons of each methodology including the bases to attack the methodology that will be subject to cross-examination. The five primary CPM methodologies are as follows:
    1. As-Planned Versus As-Built. This methodology compares the as-planned baseline schedule to an as-built schedule reflecting progress to assign delay. An as-built schedule that reflects progress includes actual start dates, finish dates, and durations. The actual dates and durations are compared with the as-planned dates and durations on the baseline schedule to determine delay. Under this methodology, the delay impact is determined retrospectively.
    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 Texas Cities Top San Francisco for Property Investors

    October 22, 2014 —
    Houston and Austin are the most attractive U.S. markets for buying and developing real estate, topping San Francisco, as growth potential in the Texas cities draws investors from popular coastal areas, a survey shows. The Northern California city ranked third, down from No. 1 last year, according to a report released today by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the Urban Land Institute. Denver and Dallas-Fort Worth rounded out the five markets offering the best prospects for investors in 2015, the poll of more than 1,400 people in the real estate business shows. Manhattan slipped out of the top 10 to rank 14th. Some non-coastal markets are drawing more property investors partly because they offer higher yields than places such as San Francisco and Manhattan, which led the recovery from the financial crisis. The smaller cities also are benefiting from employment growth and increasing numbers of people moving into urban centers, according to Mitch Roschelle, a partner and U.S. real estate advisory practice leader at PricewaterhouseCoopers in New York. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Louis, Bloomberg
    Mr. Louis may be contacted at blouis1@bloomberg.net

    Unwrapped Pipes Lead to Flooding and Construction Defect Lawsuit

    July 31, 2013 —
    Homeowners in New Jersey have filed a lawsuit over unwrapped pipes in exterior walls. During the cold winter weather, the pipes froze, leading one homeowner to experience a “massive leak.” A plumber was able to end the flooding by shutting off water to the house. He then told the homeowner, Robert Long, that he had been doing the same at other homes in the community. The Longs are now party to a class-action lawsuit which seeks that the homebuilder, Ryan Homes, tell those who have purchased homes about the defect. Further, the suit seeks compensation for those whose home have been damaged, and repairs to assure that additional homes do not have their pipes burst. Stephen P. DeNittis, who is representing the Longs, said that “the code violation alleged in this case is particularly troublesome because it involves unprotected pipes hidden inside an exterior wall.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Zoning Hearing Notice Addressed by Georgia Appeals Court

    April 20, 2017 —
    The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed the requisite notice of zoning proceedings that ultimately requested in a zoning decision. The key question was whether, after a properly noticed planning meeting, additional notice was required before the board’s formal vote that occurred three months later. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Your Bad Faith Jury Instruction Against an Insurer is Important

    March 09, 2020 —
    A statutory bad faith claim against an insurer is derived from Florida Statute s. 624.155. A bad faith claim against a first party insurer, such as a property insurer, must be statutory. Check out the hyperlink of the statute, but a party must first file a Civil Remedy Notice identifying the statutory violations to preserve the statutory bad faith claim giving the insurer an opportunity to cure. In a noteworthy case, Cooper v. Federated National Insurance Company, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2961a (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), the Fifth District Court of Appeal dealt with the jury instruction for an insured’s statutory bad faith claim against their property insurer. The insured filed a bad faith claim predicated on the property insurer violating the provisions of Florida Statute s. 626.9541(1)(i)3, which involves unfair claim settlement practices. The insured had a jury trial and submitted a proposed jury instruction regarding bad faith that tracked the very essence of their bad faith claim and was modeled after s. 626.9541(1)(i)(3). The trial court, however, denied this jury instruction, instead adopting a standard jury instruction for bad faith. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the property insurer and the insured appealed arguing it was reversible error for the trial court NOT to present to the jury their bad faith jury instruction. The Fifth District agreed and ordered a new trial finding that the trial court’s failure to present the jury instruction amounted to a miscarriage of justice. 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

    Denial of Coverage for Bulge in Wall Upheld

    November 26, 2014 —
    The insurer properly denied coverage for a bulge in a warehouse wall that the insured claimed was caused by Hurricane Ike. Russell v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143882 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2014). Hurricane Ike displaced metal roof coverings on the insured's warehouse, causing interior water damage to several rooms. Scottsdale eventually paid $84,820.36 for the loss of the roof, less the deductible. The parties disagreed on whether a horizontal bulge on the north wall of the warehouse was also caused by the hurricane. The bulging portion of the wall was not cracked, but cracks were seen around the corners and windows. The insured admitted to an engineer retained by Scottsdale that the cracks in the exterior walls had been filled with caulking on several occasions prior to Hurricane Ike. Scottsdale denied coverage for the damage to the north wall under exclusions for soil sinking, rising, or shifting and for damage from faulty, inadequate or defective design, construction, and repair.The insured later sent a demand for $800,000 for the damage to the wall. A suit was eventually filed by the insured. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com