BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut civil engineering 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


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

    Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies

    An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

    Grenfell Fire Probe Faults Construction Industry Practices

    New York Court Holds Radioactive Materials Exclusion Precludes E&O Coverage for Negligent Phase I Report

    What to Know Before Building a Guesthouse

    U.K. Construction Growth Unexpectedly Accelerated in January

    Traub Lieberman Partners Lenhardt and Smith Obtain Directed Verdict in Broward County Failed Repair Sinkhole Trial

    Insurance Lawyers Recognized by JD Supra 2020 Readers' Choice Awards

    Colorado House Bill 20-1290 – Restriction on the Use of Failure to Cooperate Defense in First-Party Claims

    Want a Fair Chance at a Government Contract? Think Again

    Calling Hurricanes a Category 6 Risks Creating Deadly Confusion

    How Robotics Can Improve Construction and Demolition Waste Sorting

    Lien Claimant’s Right to Execute against Bond Upheld in Court of Appeals

    California Cracking down on Phony Qualifiers

    BWB&O Partner Jack Briscoe and Associate Anoushe Marandjian Win Summary Judgment Motion on Behalf of Homeowner Client!

    Full Extent of Damage From Turkey Quakes Takes Shape

    Miller Act CLAIMS: Finding Protections and Preserving Your Rights

    Contract, Breach of Contract, and Material Breach of Contract

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

    World-Famous Architects Design $480,000 Gazebos for Your Backyard

    Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings

    Hamptons Home Up for Foreclosure That May Set Record

    Burden Supporting Termination for Default

    Contractor Sues Golden Gate Bridge District Over Suicide Net Project

    Jobsite Safety, Workforce Shortage Drive Innovation in Machine Automation

    With Wildfires at a Peak, “Firetech” Is Joining Smart City Lineups

    University of Tennessee Commits to $1.9B Capital Plan

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Denies Bad Faith Claim in HO Policy Dispute

    Condo Association Settles with Pulte Homes over Construction Defect Claims

    Brookfield Wins Disputed Bid to Manage Manhattan Marina

    Construction Trust Fund Statutes: Know What’s Required in the State Where Your Project Is Underway

    Build Me A Building As Fast As You Can

    Skanska Found Negligent for Damages From Breakaway Barges

    U.S. Homeownership Rate Falls to Lowest Since Early 1995

    Another Municipality Takes Action to Address the Lack of Condominiums Being Built in its Jurisdiction

    Used French Fry Oil Fuels London Offices as Buildings Go Green

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds That CASPA Does Not Allow For Individual Claims Against A Property Owner’s Principals Or Shareholders

    What You Need to Know About CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Regulations

    Proving & Defending Lost Profit Damages

    Sick Leave, Paid Time Off, and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

    U.S. Construction Spending Rose in 2017 by Least in Six Years

    The Construction Industry's Health Kick

    Auburn Woods Homeowners Association v. State Farm General Insurance Company

    Homeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other Things

    Haight Proudly Supports JDC's 11th Annual Bike-A-Thon Benefitting Pro Bono Legal Services

    Construction Contract Basics: Venue and Choice of Law

    Alabama Appeals Court Rules Unexpected and Unintended Property Damage is an Occurrence

    DEP Plan to Deal with Noxious Landfill Fumes Met with Criticism

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract
    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

    Florida Governor Signs COVID-19 Liability Shield

    May 17, 2021 —
    On March 29, 2021, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law Florida Statute 768.38, granting significant protections to business entities, educational institutions, governmental entities, and religious institutions from claims related to COVID-19 if they made a good faith effort to follow guidelines to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. The law is effective immediately and applies to actions filed after March 29, 2021. Recognizing the financial impact that the pandemic has had across the State of Florida, the new law aims to dissuade potential claimants from filing meritless claims for personal injuries, wrongful death, or other damages allegedly due to COVID-19 exposure in a few key ways. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Andrea de Oña, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Oña may be contacted at Andrea.deOna@lewisbrisbois.com

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

    December 18, 2022 —
    On December 5, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Georgia held that a total pollution exclusion (TPE) in a CGL policy relieved the insurer of any obligation to defend or indemnify a recycling company in a putative class action alleging PFAS contamination of Georgia waterways. See Grange Ins. Co. v. Cycle-Tex Inc., et al., Order, Civ. A. No. 4:21-cv-00147-AT (N.D. Ga. Dec. 5, 2022). The decision adds to a slowly-developing body of case law addressing coverage issues arising out of PFAS-related claims. In Grange, the insured, Cycle-Tex, Inc., was the operator of a thermoplastics recycling facility in Dalton, Georgia. Cycle-Tex and other defendants – which included chemical suppliers, carpet manufacturers, intermediaries, the City of Dalton and the Dalton-Whitfield Solid Waste Authority – were named in a putative class action complaint alleging that residents of Dalton had been injured as a result of the defendants’ discharge of PFAS into local waterways. The complaint sought damages for: (1) alleged harm to the residents’ health by virtue of ingesting contaminated water; (2) alleged property damage resulting from the contamination of the public water supply; and (3) the payment of surcharges and heightened water rates as a result of the alleged contamination. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Paul Briganti, White and Williams
    Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

    Claimants’ Demand for Superfluous Wording In Release Does Not Excuse Insurer’s Failure to Accept Policy Limit Offer Within Time Specified

    September 15, 2016 —
    In Barickman v. Mercury Casualty Co. (No. B260833, filed 7/25/16, ord. pub. 8/15/16) a California appeals court affirmed a $3 million bad faith award against Mercury Casualty Co. based upon its failure to accept a policy limit demand within the time provided, finding that wording inserted by the claimants’ counsel into the release did not affect the insured’s rights such that the refusal to agree to the wording was unreasonable and in bad faith, exposing the insurer to liability for the insured’s stipulated judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    2017 California Employment Law Update

    January 13, 2017 —
    Below are some of the new laws going into effect this year that affect the construction industry. Unless otherwise noted, the laws go into effect on January 1, 2017. Public Works and Prevailing Wages You can read more about the new laws—AB 326, AB 1926 and SB 954—relating to public works and prevailing wages in an earlier blog post. Employment Contracts Choice of Forum and Choice of Law. Under SB 1241, an employer cannot require an employee who primarily works and resides in California to agree to file a lawsuit or bring a claim in another state when the claim arises in California. This is usually referred to as the choice of forum clause. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Evelin Y. Bailey, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Ms. Bailey may be contacted at ebailey@wendel.com

    N.J. Appellate Court Applies Continuous Trigger Theory in Property Damage Case and Determines “Last Pull” for Coverage

    November 15, 2017 —
    The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, published an important decision addressing several fundamental issues regarding how a commercial general liability (CGL) policy applies to long-term property damage. The court held that: (1) a continuous trigger theory of coverage may be applied to third-party liability claims involving progressive property damage caused by an insured’s allegedly defective work; (2) the “last pull” (i.e., the cutoff point) of the continuous trigger is when the “essential nature and scope” of the property damage first becomes known or could reasonably be known; and (3) the “last pull” is not when the property damage is “attributed” to the insured’s faulty work. The underlying action in Air Master & Cooling Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co., et al. 1 concerned property damage arising out of the construction of a seven-story, 101-unit condominium building in Montclair, New Jersey. The project’s construction manager hired Air Master & Cooling, Inc. (Air Master) to perform HVAC work on the project, including installing individual HVAC equipment in each resident’s unit from 2005 to 2008. In early 2008, unit owners began complaining about water infiltration and damage to their windows, ceilings, and other portions of their units. The general contractor and developer began assessing the damage and making repairs. Eventually, in April 2010, an expert consultant performed a moisture survey of the roof and discovered 111 areas that were damaged by water infiltration. The expert report indicated that “it [was] impossible to determine when [the] moisture infiltration occurred.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Byrd may be contacted at kab@sdvlaw.com

    Preserving your Rights to Secure Payment on Construction Projects (with Examples)

    March 22, 2017 —
    All participants across the construction industry should understand what efforts they should take to maximize and collateralize payment. No one wants to work for free and, certainly, no one in the construction industry wants to work without ensuring there is some mechanism to recover payment in the event they remain unpaid. Being proactive and knowledgeable can go a long way when it comes to recovering your money. Your Contract – It starts with the contract. You should understand those risks that are allocated to you and those that are allocated to another party. And, you should understand the contractual mechanism to resolve claims and disputes and whether your contract has a prevailing party attorney’s fees provision. In addition to contractual rights, there are tools for you to maximize your collection efforts. 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

    Can’t Get a Written Change Order? Document, Document, Document

    August 29, 2018 —
    Most construction contracts require that any changes to the work be made formally, in writing, via a change order, work directive, or similar written document. Frequently, however, changes to the work or extra work are communicated orally by the architect, engineer, or owner’s representative, instead of in writing. What is the contractor to do in such a situation? The best option is follow the provisions of the contract and demand a written change order before performing changed work. Unfortunately, the realities of construction sometimes make it impossible to get the changes in the proper format in a timely manner. Savvy contractors will maintain schedule and produce written documentation of the change in lieu of a formal change order or directive. But many contractors will simply proceed with the changed work, relying on the owner, architect, or engineer to do the right thing and stand by their oral instructions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Todd M. Heffner, Smith Currie
    Mr. Heffner may be contacted at tmheffner@smithcurrie.com

    California Court of Appeal Adopts Horizontal Exhaustion Rule

    June 28, 2013 —
    In a long running suit regarding thousands of asbestos bodily injury claims brought against Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation, the California appellate court held that the excess carrier's indemnity obligation did not attach until all collectible primary policies were exhausted. Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corp. v. Ins. Co. of the State of Pennsylvania, 215 Cal. App.4th 210 (Cal. Ct. App. April 8, 2013). Kaiser manufactured a variety of asbestos-containing products from 1944 through the 1970's. Truck Insurance Company provided primary insurance to Kaiser from 1964 to 1983, through four CGL policies covering 19 annual policy periods. The policy in effect from 1974 to 1981 contained a $500,000 "per occurrence" liability limit. Kaiser was insured by three other primary carriers between 1947 and 1987. ICSOP issued a first layer excess policy to Kaiser from 1974 through 1976. Kaiser tendered numerous claims for bodily injury to Truck. By October 2004, Truck's indemnity payments exceeded $50 million and included at least 39 claims that resulted in payments in excess of $500,000. For claims alleging bodily injury in 1974, Kaiser selected Truck's 1974 policy to respond to each of the claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com