BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction claims 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


    Keeping Detailed Records: The Best Defense to Constructive Eviction

    Graham & Who May Trigger The Need To Protest

    Michigan Court of Appeals Remands Construction Defect Case

    Language California Construction Direct Contractors Must Add to Subcontracts Beginning on January 1, 2022, Per Senate Bill 727

    Subcontractor Entitled to Defense for Defective Work Causing Property Damage Beyond Its Scope of Work

    Meet Your Future Team Members: AI Agents

    Top 10 Take-Aways from the 2024 Fall Forum Meeting in Pittsburgh

    Earth Movement Exclusion Bars Coverage

    3 Common Cash Flow Issues That Plague The Construction Industry

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (4/24/24) – Omni Hotels Hit with Cyberattack, Wisconsin’s Low-Interest Loans for Home Construction, and Luxury Real Estate Sales Increase

    Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

    Hunton Insurance Lawyer, Jae Lynn Huckaba, Awarded Miami-Dade Bar Association Young Lawyer Section’s Rookie of the Year Award

    Colorado Passes Construction Defect Reform Bill

    North Carolina Appeals Court Threatens Long-Term Express Warranties

    Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses

    Mountain States Super Lawyers 2019 Recognizes 21 Nevada Snell & Wilmer Attorneys

    ‘I’m a Scapegoat,’ Says Former CEO of Dubai Construction Firm

    Evergrande’s Condemned Towers on China’s Hawaii Show Threat

    Exponential Acceleration—Interview with Anders Hvid

    Millennium’s Englander Buys $71.3 Million Manhattan Co-Op

    CRH to Buy Building-Products Firm Laurence for $1.3 Billion

    Florida Federal Court Reinforces Principle That Precise Policy Language Is Required Before An Insurer Can Deny Coverage Based On An Exclusion

    Policy Sublimit Does Not Apply to Business Interruption Loss

    New York Office Secures Appellate Win in Labor Law 240(1) Fall in Basement Accident Case

    CC&Rs Not the Place for Arbitration Agreement, Court Rules

    Effective Strategies for Reinforcing Safety Into Evolving Design Standards

    Maine Case Demonstrates High Risk for Buying Home “As Is”

    Loss Caused by Theft, Continuous Water Discharge Not Covered

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

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

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation: A Redux

    SB800 Not the Only Remedy for Construction Defects

    Eighth Circuit Remands to Determine Applicability of Collapse Exclusion

    DIR Reminds Public Works Contractors to Renew Registrations Before January 1, 2016 to Avoid Hefty Penalty

    Feds Move To Indict NY Contractor Execs, Developer, Ex-Cuomo Aide

    New EPA Regulation for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

    California Fears El Nino's Dark Side Will Bring More Trouble

    As Evidence Grows, Regions Prepare for Sea Level Rise

    New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal in the Nation

    Employee Handbooks—Your First Line of Defense

    Illinois Supreme Court Rules Labor Costs Not Depreciated to Determine Actual Cash Value

    Construction Spending Had Strongest Increase in Four Years

    Florida Accuses Pool Contractor of Violating Laws

    NIBS Consultative Council Issues Moving Forward Report on Healthy Buildings

    Last Call: Tokyo Iconic Okura Hotel Meets the Wrecking Ball

    Used French Fry Oil Fuels London Offices as Buildings Go Green

    Sales of New Homes in U.S. Increased 5.4% in July to 507,000

    Three Attorneys Elevated to Partner at Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP

    Communications between Counsel and PR Firm Hired by Counsel Held Discoverable
    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

    NY Pay-to-Play Charges Dropped Against LPCiminelli Executive As Another Pleads Guilty

    June 06, 2018 —
    The former president of New York contractor LPCiminelli—the firm that has been at the center of an alleged pay-to-play scheme playing out since 2016 when he and two other executives were indicted—got a reprieve as federal prosecutors said they were dropping all charges against him, including wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and making false statements to federal agents, according to a June 1 court filing. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR and Debra K. Rubin, ENR Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Illinois Town’s Bond Sale Halted Over Fraudulent Hotel Deals

    June 26, 2014 —
    A city outside Chicago was blocked from selling bonds after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused it of defrauding investors and steering secret fees to a municipal official. The case against Harvey, Illinois, a struggling city of 25,000 battered by poverty and crime, involves about $14 million in bonds sold from 2008 to 2010 that were to pay for development of a Holiday Inn hotel and conference venue. The SEC said that the city hoodwinked investors by using $1.7 million to pay payroll and other operating expenses, while the hotel stands in disrepair with holes in its facade, exposed studs and a gutted interior. The SEC said Comptroller Joseph Letke, 55, also profited by receiving $269,000 in undisclosed payments while advising the developer of the ill-fated project. Mr. Selway may be contacted at wselway@bloomberg.net; Ms. Campbell may be contacted at ecampbell14@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William Selway and Elizabeth Campbell, Bloomberg

    Fraud Claims and Breach Of Warranty Claims Against Manufacturer

    March 04, 2024 —
    A recent case touches upon two issues that are noteworthy when considering fraud claims and breach of warranty claims against a manufacturer. Below contains a discussion on these claims. Independent Tort Doctrine “Florida’s independent tort doctrine provides that a party may not recover in tort for a contract dispute unless the tort is independent of any breach of contract.” MidAmerica C2L Inc. v. Siemens Energy, Inc., 2024 WL 414620, *6 (M.D.Fla. 2024). This means tort allegations and claims MUST be separate and distinct from performance under the contract. Id. (citation omitted). In MidAmerica C2L, a plaintiff sued a manufacturer relating to sophisticated equipment for a coal gasification plant. The parties entered into different agreements for the equipment and a license where the plaintiff could use the manufacturer’s patented technology for its coal gasification plants. A dispute arose and the plaintiff sued the manufacturer under various legal theories. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment. 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

    Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

    February 18, 2020 —
    Recently, I was talking with my friend Matt Hundley about a recent case he had in the Charlottesville, VA Circuit Court. It was a relatively straightforward (or so he and I would have thought) breach of contract matter involving a fixed price contract between his (and an associate of his Laura Hooe) client James River Stucco and the Montecello Overlook Owners’ Association. I believe that you will see the reason for the title of the post once you hear the facts and read the opinion. In James River Stucco, Inc. v. Monticello Overlook Owners’ Ass’n, the Court considered Janes River Stucco’s Motion for Summary Judgment countering two arguments made by the Association. The first Association argument was that the word “employ” in the contract meant that James River Stucco was required to use its own forces (as opposed to subcontractors) to perform the work. The second argument was that James River overcharged for the work. This second argument was made without any allegation of fraud or that the work was not 100% performed. Needless to say, the Court rejected both arguments. The Court rejected the first argument stating:
    In its plain meaning, “employ” means to hire, use, utilize, or make arrangements for. A plain reading of the contractual provisions cited–“shall employ” and references to “employees”–and relied on by Defendant does not require that the persons performing the labor, arranged by Plaintiff, be actual employees of the company or on the company’s payroll. It did not matter how the plaintiff accomplished the work so long as it was done correctly. The purpose of those provisions was to allocate to Plaintiff responsibility for supplying a sufficient workforce to get the work done, not to impose HR duties or require the company to use only “in house” workers. So I find that use of contracted work does not constitute a breach of the contract or these contractual provisions.
    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

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 38 White and Williams Lawyers

    September 13, 2021 —
    White and Williams is proud to announce that 30 lawyers were recognized in the 2022 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® 2022 and eight were recognized as “Ones to Watch.” Inclusion in Best Lawyers® is based entirely on peer-review. The methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Intentionally Set Atlanta Interstate Fire Closes Artery Until June

    April 05, 2017 —
    Crews from C.W. Matthews Contracting Co., Marietta, Ga., are removing debris from an Interstate 85 bridge in Atlanta that collapsed during a March 30 rush-hour fire. No injuries were reported, but the incident forced an extended closure of the highway section. Investigators say the fire was intentionally set inside a fenced Georgia Dept. of Transportation surplus equipment storage area beneath the structure, and it intensified after spreading to a stockpile of polyethylene and fiberglass conduit. Flames and high temperatures subsequently compromised the bridge’s structural integrity. Authorities have charged one individual with arson and first-degree criminal damage to property, while two others were cited for criminal trespass. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent

    January 08, 2024 —
    On November 30, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion that overturned precedent in Illinois regarding whether faulty workmanship that only caused damage to the insured’s own work constituted “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under Illinois law. In Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, 2023 IL 129087, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether Acuity, a mutual insurance company, had a duty to defend its additional insured, M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC (M/I Homes), under a subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy in connection with an underlying lawsuit brought by a townhome owners’ association for breach of contract and breach of an implied warranty of habitability. The Cook County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Acuity finding no duty to defend because the underlying complaint did not allege “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the initial grant of coverage of the insurance policy. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that Acuity owed M/I Homes a duty to defend. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, in part, holding construction defects to the general contractor’s own work may constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the standard CGL Policy. This is significant as it overrules prior Illinois precedent finding that repair or replacement of the insured’s defective work does not satisfy the initial grant of coverage of a CGL Policy. By way of background, the underlying litigation stems from alleged construction defects in a residential townhome development in the village of Hanover Park, Illinois. The townhome owners’ association, through its board of directors (the Association) subsequently filed an action on behalf of the townhome owners for breach of contract and breach of the implied warranty of habitability against M/I Homes as the general contractor and successor developer/seller of the townhomes. The Association alleged that M/I Homes’ subcontractors caused construction defects by using defective materials, conducting faulty workmanship, and failing to comply with applicable building codes. As a result, “[t]he [d]efects caused physical injury to the [t]ownhomes (i.e. altered the exterior’s appearance, shape, color or other material dimension) after construction of the [t]ownhome[ ] was completed from repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions.” The defects included “leakage and/or uncontrolled water and/or moisture in locations in the buildings where it was not intended or expected.” The Association alleged that the “[d]efects have caused substantial damage to the [t]ownhomes and damage to other property.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

    Pass-Through Subcontractor Claims, Liquidating Agreements, and Avoiding a Two-Front War

    April 26, 2021 —
    Subcontractor claims happen. When those subcontractor claims are prompted by owner actions or responsibilities, the general contractor must always be vigilant to plan for and work to avoid a two-front war in which the general contractor is pushing the owner for recovery while at the same time disputing the subcontractor’s entitlement. Cooperation between the general contractor and the subcontractor and avoiding that two-front war can be accomplished through pass-through claims and ideally liquidating agreements. A pass-through claim is a claim by the subcontractor who has suffered damages by the owner with whom it has no contract, presented by the general contractor. A liquidating agreement or subcontract “liquidating language” goes a step further than simply a pass-through claim by “liquidating” the general contractor’s liability for the subcontractor’s claim and limiting the general contractor’s liability to the value recovered against the owner. The distinction between pass-through claims generally and use of liquidating agreements or language is described in greater detail below. Pass-through subcontractor claims are routine in construction and an important, common sense approach to deal with ever-present changes and the unexpected that can have cost and time implications. Despite the common sense basis for subcontractor pass-through claims, there are important legal considerations that must be addressed, and critical planning required, starting with the subcontract clauses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bradley Sands, Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Sands may be contacted at bsands@joneswalker.com