BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut 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


    Workers Compensation Insurance: Dangers of the Audit Process

    U.S. Architecture Firms’ Billing Index Faster in Dec.

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (4/10/24) – Hotels Integrate AI, Baby-Boomers Stay Put, and Insurance Affects Housing Market

    Newmeyer & Dillion Gets Top-Tier Practice Area Rankings on U.S. News – Best Lawyers List

    Out of the Black

    Vancouver’s George Massey Tunnel Replacement May Now be a Tunnel Instead of a Bridge

    New York Appellate Team Obtains Affirmance of Dismissal of Would-Be Labor Law Action Against Municipal Entities

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Less Than Valiant Effort”

    Reminder: The Devil is in the Mechanic’s Lien Details

    "On Second Thought"

    U.S. Department of Justice Settles against Days Inn

    Illinois Legislature Enables Pre-Judgment Interest in Personal Injury Cases

    Taylor Morrison Home Corp’ New San Jose Development

    Is it the Dawning of the Age of Strict Products Liability for Contractors in California?

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss "Redundant Claims" Denied

    Big Bertha Lawsuits—Hitachi Zosen Weighs In

    Get Your Contracts Lean- Its Better than Dieting

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Brings Professional Development Series to Their San Antonio Office

    Bad News for Buyers: U.S. Mortgage Rates Hit Highest Since 2014

    The DOL Claims Most Independent Contractors Are Employees

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (05/11/22)

    Architectural Democracy – Interview with Pedro Aibéo

    Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2024

    How One Squirrel Taught us a Surprising Amount about Insurance Investigation Lessons Learned from the Iowa Supreme Court

    ASHRAE Seeks Comments by May 26 on Draft of Pathogen Mitigation Standard

    Indiana Court of Appeals Rules Against Contractor and Performance Bond Surety on Contractor's Differing Site Conditions Claim

    Foundation Differences Across the U.S.

    Construction Defect Reform Dies in Nevada Senate

    Will Superusers Future-Proof the AEC Industry?

    Risky Business: Contractual Versus Equitable Rights of Subrogation

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    Flag on the Play! Expired Contractor’s License!

    Starting July 1, 2020 General Contractors are “Employers” for All Workers on Their Jobsite

    Congratulations to our 2019 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    Hunton Insurance Coverage Group Ranked in National Tier 1 by US News & World Report

    Novation Agreements Under Federal Contracts

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Berkeley Researchers Look to Ancient Rome for Greener Concrete

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Recognized Among The Top 50 Construction Law Firms by Construction Executive

    Condos Down in Denver Due to Construction Defect Litigation

    Final Furnishing Date is a Question of Fact

    The Pandemic of Litigation Sure to Follow the Coronavirus

    What ‘The Curse’ Gets Wrong About Passive House Architecture

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation

    Candis Jones Named “On the Rise” by Daily Report's Georgia Law Awards

    Bill Taylor Co-Authors Chapter in Pennsylvania Construction Law Book

    What Is the Best Way to Avoid Rezoning Disputes?

    Comparative Breach of Contract – The New Benefit of the Bargain in Construction?

    Sacramento Water Works Recognized as a Historic Civil Engineering Landmark

    As of July 1, 2024, California Will Require Most Employers to Have a Written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and Training. Is Your Company Compliant?
    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 Appellate Court Holds Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applicable Irrespective of Contractor Licensure

    June 22, 2016 —
    In Brock v. Garner Window & Door Sales, Inc.,[1] Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected a novel attempt to circumvent Florida’s well-established four-year statute of limitations for all actions founded on the construction of an improvement to real property. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract as a result of water intrusion damage following the installation of windows.[2] It was undisputed that Plaintiff commenced the litigation more than four years following the discovery of the allegedly latent defect in the window installation.[3] Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the window contractor could not rely on the four-year statute of limitations because the window subcontractor was not a licensed contractor and, therefore, the five-year statute of limitations for actions founded on written contracts should apply. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Clay Whittaker, Cole, Scott, & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Whittaker may be contacted at clay.whittaker@csklegal.com

    No Coverage for Tenant's Breach of Contract Claims

    April 05, 2017 —
    The court granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding there was no duty to defend or indemnify a tenant/insured's contract-related claims. Erie Ins. Exch. v. Little Ducklings Daycare Associates, LP, 2017 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 22 (Pa. D. Jan. 25, 2017). Little Ducklings Daycare Preschool ("tenant") leased from the Estate of Carmen Neri ("landlord") premises to run a day care center for five years. The lease identified two of tenant's members, Maryanne L. Hatzold and Thomas Hatzold, as guarantors for the lease. The Hatzolds ("Guarantors") delivered to the landlord a written lease guaranty agreement. The guarantee assured the full payment and satisfaction of the rent owed under the lease. 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

    Use It or Lose It: California Court of Appeal Addresses Statutes of Limitations for Latent Construction Defects and Damage to Real Property

    August 02, 2017 —
    The First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal recently confirmed California’s latent defect statute of limitations, codified in California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15, bars only claims based on construction defects. Estuary Owners Association v. Shell Oil Company, No. A145516, (Cal. Ct. App. July 26, 2017). The Court also reemphasized that under California’s three-year statute of limitations for damage to real property, delineated in California Code of Civil Procedure section 338(b), the actual and constructive knowledge of the prior landowner is imputed to the current landowner. Estuary Owners Association concerned the development and construction of a 100-unit condominium by Signature at the Estuary, LLC (“Signature”) on land Shell Oil Company (“Shell”) previously used as a fuel distribution terminal. Construction of the condominiums was completed in 2006. In 2008, it was discovered that residual concentrations of petroleum related chemicals remained in the soil, soil gas, and groundwater beneath the development. Later that year, Signature revealed that the condominiums had been constructed with moisture barriers beneath the building slabs instead of the vapor/gas barriers called for in the corrective action plan. Reprinted courtesy of Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    DE Confirms Robust D&O Protection Despite Company Demise

    February 18, 2015 —
    On Feb. 5, 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, per Judge Brendan L. Shannon, entered proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the former president and CEO of Ultimate Escapes Inc., James M. Tousignant, and its chairman, Richard Keith, after determining that Tousignant’s actions in negotiating and executing a controversial asset purchase agreement were protected by the business judgment rule, despite the demise of the company a short time later. The failure of a business strategy, in and of itself, does not create liability on the part of the former directors and officers of a bankrupt company. Background Ultimate Escapes was a luxury destination club that provided its members with access to high-end vacation residences around the world. Unfortunately, Ultimate Escapes’ business suffered greatly from the economic downturn that began in 2008, and on Sept. 20, 2010, Ultimate Escapes filed voluntary petitions for relief pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys James Yoder, Michael Onufrak and Siobhan Cole Mr. Yoder may be contacted at yoderj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Onufrak may be contacted at onufrakm@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Cole may be contacted at coles@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Claims Made Insurance Policies

    November 04, 2019 —
    “Claims-made policies are common in the professional liability insurance market. They “differ from traditional ‘occurrence’-based policies primarily based upon the scope of the risk against which they insure.” With claims-made policies, coverage is provided only where the act giving rise to coverage “is discovered and brought to the attention of the insurance company during the period of the policy.” In contrast, coverage is provided under an occurrence-based policy if the act giving rise to coverage “occurred during the period of the policy, regardless of the date a claim is actually made against the insured.” “The essence, then, of a claims-made policy is notice to the carrier within the policy period.” Crowely Maritime Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2019 WL 3294003 (11thCir. 2019) The recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal opinion in Crowely Maritime Corp. discussed the distinction between a claims-made insurance policy and an occurrence-based insurance policy. Professional liability policies are generally claims-made policies whereas commercial general liability policies are generally occurrence-based policies. While this opinion does not involve a construction matter, the case did concern the definition of a “claim” in a claims-made policy and whether such claim was timely reported to the insurer within the discovery period / extended reporting period. 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

    Conflicts of Laws, Deficiency Actions, and Statutes of Limitations – Oh My!

    May 10, 2017 —
    What law governs a deficiency action if the choice-of-law provisions in the note and deed of trust conflict? The Arizona Court of Appeals answered that very question in ZB, N.A. v. Hoeller, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0071 (Ct. App. April 15, 2017). It turns out, the note controls. The Facts In ZB, ZB, N.A. (ZB), a Utah bank, lent money to the Hoellers to purchase a commercial property in Missouri. The note included a choice-of-law provision stating that Utah law governed the debt. The deed of trust securing the commercial property, however, provided that Missouri law controlled “procedural matters related to the perfection and enforcement of [ZB’s] rights and remedies against the [p]roperty.” In 2012, the Hoellers defaulted, and the bank recovered the property through a trustee’s sale. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

    Colorado Federal Court Confirms Consequetial Property Damage, But Finds No Coverage for Subcontractor

    November 01, 2022 —
    A recommended decision from the Magistrate Judge of the Federal District Court for the District of Colorado found there was no coverage for the subcontractor's faulty workmanship, but recognized that Colorado finds consequential damages to be property damage. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Houston Cas. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117857 (D. Colo. July 5, 2022). The insured, Tripp Construction, was a subcontrator for contructing balconies at an apartment complex. The owner complained that Tripp failed to properly install balconies. The defective installation of certain balcony components damaged other, non-defective components. The general contractor had an OCIP policy issued by Houston Casualty Company (HCC). The general contractor also had a Subcontractor Default policy issued by Indian Harbor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove

    May 30, 2018 —
    A differing site condition claim will almost universally result in both a cost and time impact. There will be additional, unanticipated costs incurred. And there will likely be a delay requiring additional time to perform. A Type I differing site condition claim is when the contractor encounters conditions at the site different than those indicated in the contract documents. That seems easy enough to prove, right. Nope. And, I mean nope! If you don’t believe me, consider the recent decision in Meridian Engineering Co. v. U.S., 885 F.3d 1351 (Fed.Cir. 2018). 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