BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield 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


    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Sub-Contracted Electrical Company

    Revisiting OSHA’s Controlling Employer Policy

    Insured Fails to Provide Adequate Proof of Water Damage Through Roof

    New York Court Rejects Owner’s Bid for Additional Insured Coverage

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Court Slams the Privette Door on Independent Contractor’s Bodily Injury Claim

    Righting Past Wrongs Through Equitable Development

    Massive Danish Hospital Project Avoids Fire Protection Failures with Imerso Construction AI

    Additional Insured Secures Defense Under Subcontractor's Policy

    The Rise of Modular Construction – Impacts for Consideration

    Don’t Waive Your Right to Arbitrate (Unless You Want To!)

    Convictions Obtained in Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Inverse Condemnation Action

    Hurricane Handbook: A Policyholder's Guide to Handling Claims during Hurricane Season

    Finding Insurer's Declaratory Relief Action Raises Unsettled Questions of State Law, Case is Dismissed

    PSA: Pay If Paid Ban Goes into Effect on January 1, 2023

    President Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order and the Construction Industry

    District of Oregon Predicts Oregon’s Place in “Plain Meaning” Pollution Camp

    Limiting Liability: Three Clauses to Consider in your Next Construction Contract

    General Contractor’s Excess Insurer Denied Equitable Contribution From Subcontractor’s Excess Insurer

    ISO’s Flood Exclusion Amendments and Hurricane Ian Claims

    Force Majeure Recommendations

    Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Faulty Work By Subcontractor Constitutes "Occurrence"

    New York Philharmonic Will Open Geffen Hall Two Years Ahead of Schedule

    Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Honors Construction Attorney

    Navigating Abandonment of a Construction Project

    Two Lawyers From Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Group, Andrea DeField and Latosha Ellis, Selected for American Bar Association’s 2022 “On The Rise” Award

    Certificates of Insurance May Confer Coverage

    Additional Dismissals of COVID Business Interruption, Civil Authority Claims

    In Appellate Division First, New York Appellate Team Successfully Invokes “Party Finality” Doctrine to Obtain Dismissal of Appeal for Commercial Guarantors

    Insurance Measures Passed by 2015 Hawaii Legislature

    White House Seeks $310M To Fix Critical San Diego Wastewater Plant

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers

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

    Homebuilders Go Green in Response to Homebuyer Demand

    Construction Law Job Opps and How to Create Them

    Colombia's $15 Billion Road Plan Bounces Back From Bribe Scandal

    Spearin Doctrine as an Affirmative Defense

    Aecmaster’s Digital Twin: A New Era for Building Design

    Claims Made Insurance Policies

    The “Builder’s Remedy” Looms Over Bay Area Cities

    Axa Buys London Pinnacle Site for Redesigned Skyscraper

    Define the Forum and Scope of Recovery in Contract Disputes

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

    Statutes of Limitations May be the Colorado Contractors’ Friend

    Florida Condo Collapse Victims Reach $1 Billion Settlement

    Incorrect Information Provided on Insurance Application Defeats Claim for Coverage

    NYC Design Firm Executives Plead Guilty in Pay-to-Play Scheme

    The G2G Year-End Roundup (2022)

    Staffing Company Not Entitled to Make a Claim Against a Payment Bond and Attorneys’ Fees on State Public Works Payment Bonds
    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

    Construction Bidding for Success

    May 22, 2023 —
    When construction companies develop a history of successful projects, they often consider bidding on larger projects. However, larger projects can carry greater risks. If your company has successfully completed numerous $10 million projects and is considering a bid on a $100 million project, there are several factors to consider before submitting a proposal. That is because bidding on the wrong project could potentially put you out of business. “When a contractor bids a larger project, there is a greater financial risk,” says Tim Holicky, a senior executive underwriter at The Hartford. There are more subcontractors to manage and additional materials to purchase, which all leads to greater financial risk. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights

    St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc.

    January 18, 2021 —
    In St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc., ----Cal.App.5th--- (November 23, 2020), the California First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's entry of judgment in favor of SBC Insurance Services ("SBC") regarding a claim for water damage sustained by a residence owned by St. Mary & John Coptic Church ("St. Mary") under property coverage afforded by a policy issued by Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company ("Philadelphia"). The policy was procured by SBC on behalf of St. Mary. Philadelphia denied coverage of the claim based on the vacancy exclusion in its policy, but entered into a settlement and loan receipt agreement, whereby St. Mary gave Philadelphia the right to control litigation in St. Mary’s name against SBC or third parties who might be liable for the loss in exchange for a loan of money to repair and remediate the damage sustained by the residence. The loan was to be repaid out of any recovery made against SBC or third parties. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of SBC and held that the vacancy exclusion was ambiguous. Essentially, the exclusion did not apply to the time period prior to the time St. Mary purchased the residence, such that the 60-day vacancy requirement could not be satisfied. The trial court reasoned that since St. Mary did not have an insurable interest in the property before it purchased the property, the 60-day requirement did not include the period before such residence was purchased and St. Mary held an insurable interest. The parties’ dispute arose of out of the Pope of the Coptic Church requesting St. Mary to purchase a home to be used as his papal residence in the Western United States. St. Mary also intended to use the home as a residence for visiting bishops. The home was purchased on May 28, 2015. As part of the purchase, SBC placed the home under St. Mary’s commercial policy, rather than purchasing a separate homeowner’s policy for the residence. Subsequently, the home sustained water damage due to a broken pipe. The water damage was discovered on July 24, 2015, 57 days after the inception of the Philadelphia policy and the loss. St. Mary tendered the property loss to Philadelphia, which denied coverage of the claim based on the reasoning that the home had been vacant for 60 consecutive days prior to the loss. Subsequently, St. Mary filed suit against SBC after securing the loan receipt agreement with Philadelphia based on the argument that the vacancy exclusion barred coverage of the claim and SBC breached its duty of care by not securing the proper coverage of the home. The trial court entered judgment in favor of SBC finding that the vacancy exclusion did not apply to bar coverage of the loss, such that SBC did not breach its duty of care owed to St. Mary as its broker. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Velladao may be contacted at Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com

    California Statutes Authorizing Public-Private Partnership Contracting

    February 01, 2022 —
    Public-private partnerships are often cited as a key pathway to restoring and enhancing the nation’s infrastructure. They can be challenging arrangements to structure. (As a result of the pandemic, they have even suffered the indignity of having their “PPP” acronym coopted by the Paycheck Protection Program. With apologies to Small Business Administration practitioners, we use “PPP” in this article to refer to the infrastructure tool.) One gating condition to setting up a PPP is identifying the authority for a public entity to use a contracting method that does not run afoul of the general requirements that (i) works of improvement be let to the lowest responsive bid by a responsible bidder and (ii) design services be awarded through a qualifications-based selection process. Integrated forms of project delivery that vest in a single concessionaire multiple design, construction, financing, operation, maintenance and entrepreneurial roles must find an exception to any applicable background rules. Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. James, Pillsbury and Shade Oladetimi, Pillsbury Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Oladetimi may be contacted at shade.oladetimi@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    White and Williams Announces Partner and Counsel Promotions

    February 19, 2024 —
    PHILADELPHIA–White and Williams LLP is pleased to announce the promotion of the following attorneys: Paul A. Briganti, Patrick A. Haggerty, Timothy (T.J.). Keough, Randy J. Maniloff, and Eric A. Sauter. All five attorneys have been promoted to the Firm’s partnership. The Firm has also promoted Michael L. DeBona, Lynndon K. Groff, and Susan J. Zingone from Associate to Counsel. “All of our new Partners and Counsel enrich the firm both internally and externally. They have demonstrated a deep commitment to providing our clients with best-in-class service and through their dedication and leadership earned elevation to partner and counsel at White and Williams,” said firm Managing Partner Tim Davis. “We look forward to their many continued successes and contributions to the Firm.” Paul A. Briganti practices out of the Philadelphia office and represents national and international insurance companies in coverage disputes and complex commercial litigation. He has significant experience litigating and advising clients on issues arising under various lines of coverage, including general liability, cyber, D&O, employers liability, commercial auto and homeowners. In addition, Paul is an editor of the firm’s Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter newsletter and a regular pro bono volunteer with the Senior Law Center. He received his J.D. from Villanova University School of Law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Not Remotely Law as Usual: Don’t Settle for Delays – Settle at Remote Mediation

    May 25, 2020 —
    The emergence and rapid spread of COVID-19 has created extraordinary circumstances that have significantly impacted how we go about living, working and interacting with one another. The practice of law is no exception. While most cases have been postponed and some extended indefinitely, the issues and disputes that first triggered the litigation remain. In fact, the burdens created by social distancing and other responses to the COVID-19 outbreak have served to only increase these disputes and create an urgent need in some for quick resolution. In our previous article, we summarized some of the best practices that should be applied when taking and defending depositions in a remote, virtual setting. That technology can also offer the same benefits for alternative dispute resolutions. If planned properly, the use of technology allows remote mediations to be conducted as seamlessly as in-person mediations and, in some circumstances, affords additional benefits that can achieve the best possible resolution for all sides. This article summarizes the opportunities technology has created by which parties can attempt to resolve their disputes through alternative dispute resolution methods, even in a time of social distancing. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Victor J. Zarrilli, Robert G. Devine and Michael W. Horner Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at zarrilliv@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Horner may be contacted at hornerm@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    U.S. Stocks Fall as Small Shares Tumble Amid Home Sales

    September 24, 2014 —
    U.S. stocks fell, led by a plunge among small companies, as sales of existing homes unexpectedly dropped and China’s finance minister damped stimulus hopes. The Russell 2000 Index of small-cap stocks sank 1.6 percent, the most since July. Yahoo! Inc. (YHOO) dropped 2.3 percent to lead the Dow Jones Internet Composite Index to a one-month low. Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. slid 2.1 percent after surging in its trading debut Sept. 19. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index dropped 0.7 percent to 1,997.37 at 11:24 a.m. in New York, after closing at a record Sept. 18. The benchmark gauge hasn’t had a four-day slide this year and hasn’t fallen 10 percent in three years. The Dow Jones Industrial Average slid 58.40 points, or 0.3 percent, to 17,221.34. Mr. Ciolli may be contacted at jciolli@bloomberg.net; Ms. Bost may be contacted at cbost2@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joseph Ciolli and Callie Bost, Bloomberg

    “But it’s 2021!” Service of Motion to Vacate Via Email Found Insufficient by the Eleventh Circuit

    June 21, 2021 —
    While we are all getting used to the “new normal” of working remotely and relying on emails for almost all communications, a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit provides arbitration practitioners with a stark reminder – the “notice” requirements of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) will be strictly enforced and providing notice of a motion to vacate via email may not qualify as proper service. In O'Neal Constructors, LLC v. DRT Am., LLC, 991 F.3d 1376 (11th Cir. 2021), O’Neal Constructors, LLC (O’Neal) and DRT America (DRT) entered into a contract containing an arbitration provision. Following a dispute, the parties went to arbitration and, on January 7, 2019, the panel issued an award requiring DRT to pay O’Neal a total of $1,415,193. The amount awarded to O’Neal consisted of two parts: $765,102 for the underlying contract dispute and $650,090 for reimbursement of O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees. While DRT paid O’Neal the first portion of the award, DRT refused to pay the portion that related to O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees. On April 4, 2019, as a result of DRT’s refusal to pay O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees, O’Neal filed a motion to confirm the award in Georgia state court (which was subsequently removed to the Northern District of Georgia). The next day, in a separate action, DRT filed a motion to vacate the attorneys’ fees portion of the award and, that same night, DRT’s counsel emailed O’Neal’s counsel a “courtesy copy” of DRT’s memorandum in support of the motion to vacate. A few weeks later, on April 30, 2019 (i.e., more than three months after the award was issued), DRT served O’Neal (via U.S. Marshall) with a copy of the motion to vacate. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin Fortescue, White and Williams
    Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com

    Do You Really Want Mandatory Arbitration in Your Construction Contract?

    June 25, 2019 —
    If you are in construction, you have likley run across (or even drafted) a dispute resolution provision into your construction contract. If you’ve been building for any length of time, you’ve read dispute resolution provisions containing mandatory arbitration clauses. These clauses can be found in the AIA documents and in many of the contracts that I review for my clients in my role as construction lawyer and counselor. More often than not, these arbitration clauses require arbitration (read “private court”) and refer to one of several sets of rules, though most likely the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) Construction Industry rules. In Virginia, as in most of the United States, these clauses are read liberally and enforced by courts except in limited cases such as waiver. The main justification for requiring arbitration over litigation is to avoid the fees and expense of the litigation process. In the right circumstances, arbitration does just that. With a carefully drafted arbitration clauses and with the right case that requires expertise in construction that a judge does not have (they have to liten to all manner of disputes so are necessarily generalists), arbitration can and should be a streamlined and less expensive version of litigation. However, in my time as a construction attorney, I have more often run into situations where the arbitration process is at least equally expensive and frankly not much more streamlined. The additional administrative burden coupled with the possibility of paying for at least half of the hourly charges of one to three arbitrators is often not worth the additional expertise of those arbitrators. Many construction claims simply come down to non-payment and whether the work was performed properly. In my opinion, the fine judges in the Commonwealth of Virginia are more than capable of hearing this evidence and making a ruling. 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