BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic 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


    Seattle’s Newest Residential Developer

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    Two Texas Cities Top San Francisco for Property Investors

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Clarifies Standard for Imposing Spoliation Sanctions

    Pool Contractor’s Assets Frozen over Construction Claims

    Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes

    Wildfire Risk Scores and Insurance Placement: What You Should Know

    Developer Boymelgreen Forced to Hand Over Financial Records for 15 Broad Street

    MTA Debarment Update

    Trump’s Infrastructure Weak

    Damage to Plaintiffs' Home Caused By Unmoored Boats Survives Surface Water Exclusion

    Balestreri Potocki & Holmes Attorneys Named 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Star

    Legal Implications of 3D Printing in Construction Loom

    In Review: SCOTUS Environmental and Administrative Decisions in the 2020 Term

    Disappointment on an Olympian Scale After Rio 2016 Summer Games

    Eight Things You Need to Know About the AAA’s New Construction Arbitration Rules

    London’s Best Districts Draw Buyers on Italian Triple Dip

    Liquidated Damages Clause Not Enforced

    No Conflict in Successive Representation of a Closely-Held Company and Its Insiders Where Insiders Already Possess Company’s Confidential Information

    Why Construction Firms Should Think Differently on the Issue of Sustainability

    Maryland Legislation Prohibits Condominium Developers from Shortening Statute of Limitations to Defeat Unit Owner Construction Defect Claims

    Sean Shecter to Join American University Environmental and Energy Law Alumni Advisory Council

    What a Difference a Day Makes: Mississippi’s Discovery Rule

    Georgia Passes Solar CUVA Bill

    New York Governor Expected to Sign Legislation Greatly Expanding Recoverable Damages in Wrongful Death Actions

    Blackstone Said to Sell Boston Buildings for $2.1 Billion

    Colorado Temporarily Requires Employers to Provide Sick Leave While Awaiting COVID-19 Testing

    Jason Smith and Teddie Arnold Co-Author Updated “United States – Construction” Chapter in 2024 Legal 500: Country Comparative Guides

    Construction Lien Does Not Include Late Fees Separate From Interest

    Climate Change a Factor in 'Unprecedented' South Asia Floods

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case Denied

    A Court-Side Seat: A Poultry Defense, a Houston Highway and a CERCLA Consent Decree that Won’t Budge

    New Proposed Regulations Expand CFIUS Jurisdiction Regarding Real Estate

    Over a Hundred Thousand Superstorm Sandy Cases Re-Opened

    The Connecticut Appellate Court Decides That Construction Contractor Was Not Obligated To Continue Accelerated Schedule to Mitigate Its Damages Following Late Delivery of Materials by Supplier

    Rhode Island District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Case for Spoliation Due to Potential Unfair Prejudice to Defendant

    End of an Era: Los Angeles County Superior Court Closes the Personal Injury Hub

    Luxury-Apartment Boom Favors D.C.’s Millennial Renters

    Duty To Defend Construction Defect Case Affirmed, Duty to Indemnify Reversed In Part

    The EEOC Targets Construction Industry For Heightened Enforcement

    Liability Cap Does Not Exclude Defense Costs for Loss Related to Deep Water Horizon

    As Trump Visits Border, Texas Landowners Prepare to Fight the Wall

    Where Mechanic’s Liens and Contracts Collide

    #4 CDJ Topic: Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc.

    Connecticut Court Holds Unresolved Coverage Issues Makes Appraisal Premature

    Health Officials Concerned About Lead-Tainted Dust Created by Detroit Home Demolitions

    It’s Not Just the Millennium Tower That’s Sinking in San Francisco

    Superintendent’s On-Site Supervision Compensable as Labor Under Miller Act

    Revolutionizing Buildings with Hybrid Energy Systems and Demand Response

    Oregon Bridge Closed to Inspect for Defects
    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

    Contractor's Agreement to Perform Does Not Preclude Coverage Under Contractual Liability Exclusion

    January 31, 2014 —
    In a much anticipated decision, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a general contractor who agrees to perform its work in a good and workmanlike manner does not "assume liability" for damages arising out of its defective work so as to trigger the Contractual Liability Exclusion. Ewing Constr. Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2014 Tex. LEXIS 39 (Tex. Jan.17, 2014). Ewing signed an agreement with the School District to serve as general contractor to renovate and build additions to a school, including tennis courts. After construction was completed, the tennis courts started flaking, crumbling, and cracking. The School District filed suit, alleging breach of contract and negligence. 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

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Attorney Fee Award Under the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act

    February 16, 2016 —
    In late December, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dismissed, as improvidently granted, the appeal in Waller Corporation v. Warren Plaza, Inc., No. 6 WAP 2015 (December 21, 2015). As a result, the Superior Court’s holding in that case that there is no good faith exception to the attorney fee provision of the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA), 73 P.S. §§ 501-516, remains intact. In its decision in Waller, 95 A.3d 313 (Pa. Super. 2014), the Superior Court considered if there was a “good faith” exception to the interest and penalties provision of CASPA, 73 P.S. § 512(a), and whether there was a similar good faith exception to the attorney fee provision of the statute, 73 P.S. § 512(b). The court held that while an award of interest and penalties under § 512(a) could be denied if a party had a good faith basis for withholding payments due under a construction contract, no such exception exists for an award of attorney fees under § 512(b). Rather, an award of attorney fees is appropriate for the “substantially prevailing party” under a CASPA claim, and a claimant can be the substantially prevailing party even if the other party withheld payments in good faith. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William J. Taylor, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Drill Rig Accident Kills Engineering Manager, Injures Operator in Philadelphia

    August 10, 2021 —
    Philadelphia officials and engineering firm Langan have confirmed that a company project manager and geotechnical engineer died July 6 in a nighttime drill rig accident while he was on site to inspect foundation work for a pedestrian bridge project. Reprinted courtesy of Stephanie Loder, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    M&A Representation and Warranty Insurance Considerations in the Wake of the Coronavirus Pandemic

    April 06, 2020 —
    Increasingly, M&A transactions are using representation and warranty insurance (RWI) to bridge the gap between a buyer’s desire for adequate recourse to recover damages arising out of breach of representations in the purchase agreement and a seller’s desire to minimize post-closing risk and holdbacks or purchase price escrows traditionally used as the means to satisfy such obligations. When it works, RWI provides a significant benefit to both parties: it mitigates the buyer’s risk in the event that the seller’s representations and warranties prove untrue, and it permits the seller to reduce the portion of the purchase price that it would otherwise have to leave in escrow to cover future claims for breach of those representations and warranties. However, as the coronavirus pandemic ravages the global economy, insurers are now expressly adding COVID-19 exclusions to their RWI policies. If RWI insurers decline coverage for these losses, the allocation of risk in the representations and warranties (and related indemnity provisions) will be more critical than the parties contemplated when they negotiated the transaction documents. Unlike in the case of a natural disaster, insurers cannot quantify the economic fallout that may result from the coronavirus pandemic. This uncertainty breeds systemic concern about the number of insurance claims that covered parties of all varieties will bring, which in turn creates an industry-wide reluctance to cover the claims. Based on discussions with market participants, we understand that, at the present time, 70% to 80% of RWI insurers are broadly excluding losses resulting from COVID-19 and similar viruses, epidemics, and pandemics (including government actions in response thereto), 5% to 10% are narrowly excluding specific coronavirus-related losses that are more likely to be implicated in a particular transaction (e.g., losses caused by business interruption), and 10% to 15% may be willing to narrow their exclusions upon completion of the underwriting process, depending on their comfort level after conducting rigorous and heightened diligence. Insurers’ concerns are wide-ranging, but the representations and warranties causing the greatest distress appear to be those regarding customer retention, supply chain matters, undisclosed liabilities, and the absence of changes between the date of the seller’s most recent financial statements and the transaction closing date. Reprinted courtesy of Lori Smith, White and Williams and Patrick Devine, White and Williams Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Devine may be contacted at devinep@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “This Is Sufficient for Your Purposes …”

    April 08, 2024 —
    … but just barely. Federal courts are “notice” pleading courts. One source writes: “Notice pleading refers to pleading standards that merely notify the opposing party and court of the general issues in the case. In contrast to fact pleading standards, notice pleading standards do not require pleadings to include hyper-detailed facts in support of each claim.” Some state courts – including Louisiana – are fact pleading courts. Ordinarily, no one practicing in Louisiana state courts would describe the fact pleading requirements for initiating a lawsuit as mandating “hyper-detailing” of the facts, but … why risk it? In a construction mechanics lien case – the jurisprudence for which requires that courts strictly construe the related law because liens empower lien holders with rights which are “in derogation” of common property ownership rights – the defendant was successful in having the trial court dismiss a lien suit for failing to affirmatively set forth in the complaint (a “petition” in Louisiana) the date of substantial completion. The lien claimant appealed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    New Evidence Code Requires Attorney to Obtain Written Acknowledgement that the Confidential Nature of Mediation has been Disclosed to the Client

    January 02, 2019 —
    Senate Bill 954: MEDIATION CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLOSURES. California regards mediation as a beneficial process for parties to resolve disputes in an expeditious and economical fashion. To assure open and candid participation, there is a longstanding policy in California to maintain confidentiality during the mediation process. However, the mediation confidentiality statutes have prevented some clients from suing their·attorneys for alleged malpractice that occurred during the mediation process. (see Cassel v. Superior Court, (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113). Senate Bill ("SB") 954, was recently passed and thereafter approved by the Governor on September 11, 2018 to address this concern. SB 954, which will amend California Evidence Code section 1122 and add California Evidence Code section 1129, requires that an attorney representing a client participating in a mediation or a mediation consultation provide that client with a written disclosure and acknowledgement containing the mediation confidentiality restrictions as set forth in the California Evidence Code. This written disclosure and acknowledgement requirement does not apply to class or representative actions. Additionally, the failure of an attorney to follow the new requirement will not be a basis to set aside an agreement prepared in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation. Any communication, document, or writing related to an attorney's compliance with the disclosure requirement will not be considered confidential and may be used in a disciplinary proceeding if the communication, document, or writing does not disclose anything said or done or any admission made in the course of the mediation. California Evidence Code section 1129 sets forth the exact language that must be used in the disclosure. It even informs the client that all communications between the client and the attorney made in preparation for a mediation, or during a mediation, are confidential and cannot be disclosed or used (except in extremely limited circumstances), even if the client later decides to sue the attorney for malpractice because of something that happens during the mediation. The new disclosure requirement will allow mediation to maintain the confidentiality that encourages open and candid communications during the process while ensuring that before clients agree to mediation that the clients are made aware of how that confidentiality can potentially impact them. SB 954, will take effect on January 1,2019. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Pearce, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Pearce may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Creative Avenue for Judgment Creditor to Collect a Judgment

    October 27, 2016 —
    I have a judgment against another entity. Now what? I want to briefly talk about this “now what?” in the context of the recent decision in MYD Marine Distributor, Inc. v. International Paint, Ltd., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2364a (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Although this case is not a construction case, it poses an interesting issue for any entity that has a judgment entered against it (known as the judgment debtor) while it is contemporaneously the plaintiff and pursuing monetary damages in an unrelated case or cases. This case also presents an avenue for any judgment creditor to pursue in the event other post-judgment collection efforts are unsuccessful. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

    CGL Insurer’s Duty To Defend Broader Than Duty To Indemnify And Based On Allegations In Underlying Complaint

    April 10, 2019 —
    The duty to defend an insured with respect to a third-party claim is broader than the duty to indemnify the insured for that claim. The duty to defend is triggered by allegations in the underlying complaint. However, an insurer is only required to indemnify its insured for damages covered under the policy. A recent case example demonstrating the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify can be found in Southern Owners Ins. Co. v. Gallo Building Services, Inc., 2018 WL 6619987 (M.D.Fla. 2019). In this case, a homebuilder built a 270-unit condominium project where the units were included in 51-buildings. Upon turnover of the condominium association to the unit owners, the condominium association served a Florida Statutes Chapter 558 Notice of Construction Defects letter. There was numerous nonconforming work spread out among various subcontractor trades including nonconforming stucco work. The homebuilder incurred significant costs to repair defective work and resulting property damage, and relocated unit owners during repairs. The homebuilder then filed a lawsuit against implicated subcontractors. One of the implicated subcontractors was the stucco subcontractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com