BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut multi family design 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


    Jury Awards Aluminum Company 35 Million in Time Element Losses

    Owners Bound by Arbitration Clause on Roofing Shingles Packaging

    New York Bars Developers from Selling Condos due to CD Fraud Case

    Hudson River PCB Cleanup Lands Back in Court

    When Can a General Contractor’s Knowledge be Imputed to a Developer?

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

    San Francisco Bay Bridge Tower Rod Fails Test

    He Turned Wall Street Offices Into Homes. Now He Vows to Remake New York

    Asbestos Confirmed After New York City Steam Pipe Blast

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Apparently, It’s Not Always Who You Know”

    Alaska Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade

    HUD Homeownership Push to Heed Lessons From Crisis, Castro Says

    New England Construction Defect Law Groups to Combine

    New York City Construction: Boom Times Again?

    The Leaning Tower of San Francisco

    Why Builders Should Reconsider Arbitration Clauses in Construction Contracts

    Washington Supreme Court Upholds King County Ordinance Requiring Utility Providers to Pay for Access to County’s Right-of-Way and Signals Approval for Other Counties to Follow Suit

    New Home Sales Slip, but Still Strong

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

    Deadlines. . . They’re Important. Project Owner Risks Losing Claim By Failing to Timely Identify “Doe” Defendant

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 05/04/22

    Before Collapse, Communications Failed to Save Bridge Project

    Corps Issues Draft EIS for Controversial Alaskan Copper Mine

    Consumer Prices Rising as U.S. Housing Stabilizes: Economy

    Construction Defects and Second Buyers in Pennsylvania

    Nebraska’s Prompt Pay Act for 2015

    Las Vegas HOA Case Defense Attorney Alleges Misconduct by Justice Department

    2018 Super Bowl US. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis

    Hospital Settles Lawsuit over Construction Problems

    The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

    Don’t Kick the Claim Until the End of the Project: Timely Give Notice and Preserve Your Claims on Construction Projects

    The Importance of Retrofitting Existing Construction to Meet Sustainability Standards

    HHMR Celebrates 20 Years of Service!

    NJ Transit’s Superstorm Sandy Coverage Victory Highlights Complexities of Underwriting Property Insurance Towers

    Diggin’ Ain’t Easy: Remember to Give Notice Before You Excavate in California

    Hanover, Germany Apple Store Delayed by Construction Defects

    Look Out! Texas Building Shedding Marble Panels

    Los Angeles Is Building a Future Where Water Won’t Run Out

    New Insurance Case: Owners'​ Insurance Barred in Reimbursement Action against Tenant

    Considering Stormwater Management

    A Few Things You Might Consider Doing Instead of Binging on Netflix

    California Precludes Surety from Asserting Pay-When-Paid Provision as Defense to Payment Bond Claim

    ABC Announces Disaster Relief Efforts and Resources Following Hurricane Milton

    Five Reasons to Hire Older Workers—and How to Keep Them

    Trends: “Nearshoring” Opportunities for the Construction Industry

    How Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Decision Affects Coverage of Faulty Workmanship Claims

    Pre-Suit Settlement Offers and Construction Lien Actions

    Manhattan Home Sales Rise at Slower Pace as Prices Jump

    Failing to Release A Mechanics Lien Can Destroy Your Construction Business

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at Slower Pace in May
    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

    Wonder How 2021 May Differ From 2020? Federal Data Privacy May Be Enacted - Be Prepared

    February 22, 2021 —
    State data privacy laws, which are far from uniform, are on the rise. To address that, as well the public’s increasing concern with protecting their private information, it is expected that there will be a serious effort in Congress this year to enact federal data privacy legislation. Here is what you need to know to ensure your business is ready for potential federal regulation. Applicable State Laws As is widely known, some states have recently enacted data privacy legislation to protect consumers. For example, in early 2020, California’s new privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), took effect, giving consumers more discretion regarding over how companies share and use their personal information. (For years, California already had in place its Database Security Breach Notification Act.) More recently, California enacted the California Privacy Rights and Enforcement Act (CPRA), which amends and strengthens the CCPA. Other states, such as Maine, Nevada, New York, Oregon, and Washington, have enacted their own data privacy legislation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Bevitz, Newmeyer Dillion
    Mr. Bevitz may be contacted at joshua.bevitz@ndlf.com

    New York Court Holds That the “Lesser of Two” Doctrine Limits Recoverable Damages in Subrogation Actions

    September 23, 2019 —
    In New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v. TopBuild Home Servs., Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69634 (April 24, 2019), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently held that the “lesser of two” doctrine applies to subrogation actions, thereby limiting property damages to the lesser of repair costs or the property’s diminution in value. In New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co., New York Central Mutual Insurance Company’s (New York Central) insureds, Paul and Karen Mazzola, suffered a fire to their home. After the fire, New York Central paid the Mazzolas $708,465.74 to repair the property. New York Central brought a subrogation action against TopBuild Home Services, Inc. (TopBuild), alleging that the fire was caused by negligent work performed by TopBuild. New York Central sought to recover the repair costs it paid to the Mazzolas. TopBuild conceded liability but disputed the proper measure of damages. TopBuild filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that under the “lesser of two” doctrine, New York Central could recover only the lesser of the costs to repair the property or the property’s diminution in value. TopBuild, therefore, asserted that New York Central was not entitled to the repair costs of $708,465.74 but, rather, could recover only the property’s decline in value following the fire – approximately $250,000.[1] In response, New York Central argued that New York’s “lesser of two” doctrine does not apply to subrogation actions because an insurance company cannot mitigate the payment it makes to its insured. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

    Sixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Under Kentucky Law

    December 30, 2013 —
    Following Kentucky law, the Sixth Circuit determined there was no coverage for a construction defect claim. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kay & Kay Contracting, LLC, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23587 (6th Cir. Nov. 19, 2013). Walmart hired a contractor to build a new store. The contractor hired Kay and Kay to perform site preparation work and construct the building pad for the new store. After Kay and Kay completed the building pad and the store was erected, cracks were noticed in the building's walls. Walmart contended there was settling in the some of the fill areas. Kay and Kay denied liability, but demanded coverage under its CGL policy with Liberty Mutual. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Wisconsin Court Applies the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Negligence Claims for Purely Economic Losses

    August 17, 2020 —
    In Mech. Inc. v. Venture Elec. Contrs., Inc., No. 2018AP2380, 2020 Wisc. App. LEXIS 170, the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District Two, considered whether a party may bring a negligence claim for purely economic damages. In upholding the lower court, the appellate court found that a party is barred by the Economic Loss Doctrine from bringing a negligence claim for purely economic damages. Both parties involved in this action were subcontractors on a building project at the Great Lakes Research Facility for the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. As a result of Venture Electrical Contractors, Inc. (Venture) not paying for requested work, Mechanical, Inc. (Mechanical) sued Venture for $11,961.31. Venture, in turn, countersued in negligence for $1.1 million for costs incurred due to delays and untimely performance. Mechanical sought dismissal of the negligence claim based upon the Economic Loss Doctrine. Finding that the Economic Loss Doctrine applies to purely economic losses, the trial court dismissed Venture’s negligence claim. Venture appealed to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

    Top Five Legal Mistakes in Construction

    April 04, 2022 —
    Many contractors repeatedly make the same mistakes in negotiating contracts. Here are the most common mistakes contractors make—and how they can be avoided. 1. Not Being Careful With Force Majeure Clauses To protect themselves from liability in the event of unforeseen circumstances like fires, floods, wars, unusual delays in deliveries, strikes, pandemics or acts of God, contractors should ensure their contracts contain robust force majeure provisions. These provisions state that in the event of any extenuating circumstances outside of its control, the contractor is not liable for any damages that result from a delay to the project completion date and is entitled to a time extension. This clause has been critical in addressing COVID-19-related disruptions and the current material shortages. Contractors should be wary, however, of “no damage-for-delay” language, which often appears in conjunction with these clauses. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan A. Cass, Nicholas F. Morello and John A. Greenhall, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Cass may be contacted at jcass@cohenseglias.com Mr. Greenhall may be contacted at jgreenhall@cohenseglias.com Mr. Morello may be contacted at nmorello@cohenseglias.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A General Contractors Guide to Bond Thresholds by State

    June 13, 2018 —
    Author: Eric Weisbrot is the Chief Marketing Officer of JW Surety Bonds. With years of experience in the surety industry under several different roles within the company, he is also a contributing author to the surety bond blog. For general contractors in construction, there are many facets of business management that must be considered and then accomplished over time. Operating a successful general contractor business regardless of size or niche requires an understanding of bookkeeping, personnel management, regulatory compliance, as well as revenue potential for each project. However, one often overlooked aspect of being a general contractor – having the appropriate contractor license and minimum surety bond – correlates to each of these required fragments of the business from the start. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    New Illinois Supreme Court Trigger Rule for CGL Personal Injury “Offenses” Could Have Costly Consequences for Policyholders

    March 09, 2020 —
    The Illinois Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sanders v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., 2019 IL 124565 (2019), announced the standard for triggering general liability coverage for malicious prosecution claims under Illinois law. In its decision, the court construed what appears to be a policy ambiguity against the policyholder in spite of the longstanding rule of contra proferentem, limiting coverage to policies in place at the time of the wrongful prosecution, and not the policies in effect when the final element of the tort of malicious prosecution occurred (i.e. the exoneration of the plaintiff). The net result of the court’s ruling for policyholders susceptible to such claims is that coverage for jury verdicts for malicious prosecution – awarded in today’s dollars – is limited to the coverage procured at the time of the wrongful prosecution, which may (as in this case) be decades old. Such a scenario can have costly consequences for policyholders given that the limits procured decades ago are often inadequate due to the ever-increasing awards by juries as well as inflation. Moreover, it may be difficult to locate the legacy policies and the insurers that issued such policies may no longer be solvent or even exist. A copy of the decision can be found here. The Sanders case arose out of the wrongful conviction of Rodell Sanders in 1994 by the City of Chicago Heights (the “City”). Mr. Sanders sought recompense for, among other things, malicious prosecution through a federal civil rights action against the City. In September 2016, Mr. Sanders obtained a consent judgment for $15 Million; however, at the time of the wrongful conviction, seventeen years earlier, the City’s only applicable insurance policy provided just $3 million in coverage. The City contributed another $2 million towards the judgment and, in exchange for Mr. Sanders’s agreement not to seek the $10 million balance from the City, assigned its rights under the policies for the 2012 to 2014 period. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Automated Weather Insurance Could Offer Help in an Increasingly Hot World

    July 10, 2023 —
    Carlos José Báez experienced the full brunt of Hurricane Maria when it made landfall in Puerto Rico as a catastrophic storm in 2017. The auto paint shop owner, who lives in Aguas Buenas, Puerto Rico, saw his home badly damaged by Maria’s ferocious winds and rain. Despite submitting claims to his homeowner’s insurance policy for over $25,000, Báez ultimately received a payout of $11,000. “We had a lot of property damage and insurance, but they didn’t want to pay,” Báez said in an interview in Spanish. More than $1.6 billion in insurance claims remained unresolved more than two years after Maria while others were denied completely. The latter happened to Jonathan González’s mother, who waited nearly a year for an adjuster to come take photos of water damage and a broken wheelchair ramp only for the claim to be denied six months later. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Ma, Bloomberg