BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnesses
    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


    Quick Note: Not In Contract With The Owner? Serve A Notice To Owner.

    'Perfect Storm' Caused Fractures at San Francisco Transit Hub

    Arizona – New Discovery Rules

    Massachusetts Court Holds Statute of Repose Bars Certain Asbestos-Related Construction Claims

    Recent Supreme Court Decision Could Have Substantial Impact on Builders

    ¡AI Caramba!

    HVAC System Collapses Over Pool at Gaylord Rockies Resort Colorado

    Bremer Whyte Sets New Precedent in Palos Verdes Landslide Litigation

    N.J. Voters Approve $116 Million in School Construction

    Speeding up Infrastructure Projects with the Cloud

    Get Creative to Solve Your Construction Company's Staffing Challenges

    Contractors Should be Aware of Homeowner Duties When Invited to Perform Residential Work

    Overruling Henkel, California Supreme Court Validates Assignment of Policies

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at a Faster Pace in October

    Modular Homes Test Energy Efficiency Standards

    Alabama Still “An Outlier” on Construction Defects

    Landlords, Brace Yourselves: New Law Now Limits Your Rental Increases & Terminations

    What Makes a Great Lawyer?

    Failing to Adopt a Comprehensive Cyber Plan Can Lead to Disaster

    NEW DEFECT WARRANTY LAWS – Now Applicable to Condominiums and HOAs transitioning from Developer to Homeowner Control. Is Your Community Aware of its Rights Under the New Laws?

    Construction Law Client Alert: California Is One Step Closer to Prohibiting Type I Indemnity Agreements In Private Commercial Projects

    Consequential Damage Claims for Insurer's Bad Faith Dismissed

    Biggest U.S. Gas Leak Followed Years of Problems, State Says

    SFAA Commends U.S. Senate for Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

    Housing-Related Spending Made Up Significant Portion of GDP in Fourth Quarter 2013

    California Court Broadly Interprets Insurance Policy’s “Liability Arising Out of” Language

    Local Government’s Claims on Developer Bonds Dismissed for Failure to Pursue Administrative Remedies

    Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks: The Spearin Doctrine and Design-Build Projects

    Mediation in the Zero Sum World of Construction

    Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims

    Boston Team Secures Summary Judgment Dismissal on Client’s Behalf in Serious Personal Injury Case

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Motion for Remand

    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    South Carolina Supreme Court Asked Whether Attorney-Client Privilege Waived When Insurer Denies Bad Faith

    Boston-area Asbestos-Abatement Firms Face Wage and Safety Complaints

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    Insurance Measures Passed by 2015 Hawaii Legislature

    Leftover Equipment and Materials When a Contractor Is Abruptly Terminated

    Shifting the Risk of Delay by Having Float Go Your Way

    Life After McMillin: Do Negligence and Strict Liability Causes of Action for Construction Defects Still Exist?

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Best Practices for Productive Rule 26(f) Conferences on Discovery Plans

    Augmenting BIM Classifications – Interview with Eveliina Vesalainen of Granlund

    Atlanta Office Wins Defense Verdict For Property Manager On Claims By Vendor, Cross-Claims By Property Owner

    Todd Seelman Recognized as Fellow of Wisconsin Law Foundation

    Summarizing Changes to NEPA in the Fiscal Responsibility Act (P.L. 118-5)

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Michigan Court of Appeals Remands Construction Defect Case

    Appellate Court Reinforces When the Attorney-Client Relationship Ends for Purposes of “Continuous Representation” Tolling Provision of Legal Malpractice Statute of Limitations

    Home-Rentals Wall Street Made Say Grow or Go: Real Estate

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    UK's Biggest Construction Show Bans 'Promo Girls'

    February 28, 2018 —
    The UK Construction Week megashow, set to attract 35,000 attendees and more than 670 exhibitors October 9-11 in Birmingham, England, released a new "code of conduct" for exhibitors, banning the use of "promo girls" and stressing “equality, diversity and inclusion" in marketing, event organizers announced Feb. 12. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record
    Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com

    Ten-Year Statute Of Repose To Sue For Latent Construction Defects

    November 12, 2019 —
    If you are dealing with latent construction defects, it is imperative that you consult with counsel to understand your rights. This not only includes claims for property damage stemming from latent construction defects, but also personal injury stemming from such defects. There is a ten-year statute of repose to sue for latent construction defects. See Fla.Stat. s. 95.11(3)(c). After the expiration of this statute of repose you are out of luck, meaning you can no longer sue. Now, I probably will not be the first to tell you that the statute of repose is not written so clear that you know the precise date it ends (or the last date you can sue for a latent defect). For this reason, you really want to operate conservatively, meaning it is always better to sue early if you think you could be running on the end of the statute of repose period. It is always advisable to avoid any legitimate argument that you filed your construction defect lawsuit too late. In Harrell v. The Ryland Group, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2054b (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), a subsequent owner of a house sued the original homebuilder in negligence for a construction defect causing a personal injury. The subsequent owner claimed the homebuilder defectively installed an attic ladder (that provided access to the attic for the original construction) which collapsed as he was using it. The homebuilder filed a motion for summary judgment that the statute of repose expired so the owner’s claim was time-barred. The First District agreed. 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

    The “Your Work” Exclusion—Is there a Trend against Coverage?

    September 10, 2014 —
    Two more courts have weighed in on the “your work” exclusion in commercial general liability (CGL) policies, finding that contractors did not have coverage for work performed improperly. These cases highlight that whether you have coverage for poor workmanship will depend on the state’s law applied. It now appears that if you are in South Carolina or Massachusetts, you will not have coverage. The South Carolina case, Precision Walls, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, involved a subcontractor hired to tape insulation. After taping the insulation, a brick veneer was installed on the exterior. During the brick installation, the mason reported that the tape was losing its adhesion and the subcontractor was instructed to repair the problem. In order to access the tape, portions of the brick veneer had to be removed and re-installed. The subcontractor then sought coverage for the costs associated with repairing the tape. The insurer denied coverage and the subcontractor sued its insurer. The court ruled in favor of the insurer, finding that the defective tape was “your work” because it was “material furnished in connection” with the subcontractor’s work. The policy specifically excluded from coverage damage to property caused by “your work”. Thus, there was no coverage for the subcontractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Construction Law Job Opps and How to Create Them

    October 24, 2021 —
    For this weeks Guest Post Friday, Kirsten Grant (@kgrantcareers on Twitter) has graced us with her thoughts on a very timely topic: How to get a job as a construction attorney. Before becoming a career specialist at Kaplan University, one of the largest online universities in the nation, Kirsten Grant had faxed almost 1000 resumes, e-mailed close to 300 resumes, personally mailed 20 resumes with each one featuring “special inserts” to encourage hiring managers to read her resume (50% of those resumes received calls for an interview) and interviewed with 50 companies over the course of 5 months. Based on the feedback hiring managers provided, in addition to 10 years experience in human resources, training, recruiting and staffing she REALLY learned what hiring managers look for in a candidate and today helps over 40,000 adult learners understand how to conduct successful job searches and earn a promotions. As the real estate industry makes torrid adjustments to right itself due to foreclosures, short sales, and falling house prices, court rooms are seeing more construction law cases. As houses and properties fall into states of disrepair and as efforts are taken to repair them a chain of events take place:
    1. Property is purchased
    2. Contractors are hired to make repairs to a property
    3. The selected contractor files permits for the type of work performed
    4. After work has been performed, contactor receives compensation
    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

    New Case Alert: Oregon Supreme Court Prohibits Insurer’s Attempt to Relitigate Insured’s Liability

    November 17, 2016 —
    In a big win for policyholders, the Oregon Supreme Court recently ruled that that insurance companies are not allowed to relitigate the nature of damages awarded against their insureds during an underlying trial. In a coverage dispute stemming from a contractor’s faulty work on a condominium development, the insurer argued that at least a portion of the damages awarded represented the cost of repairing the contractor’s own work product. Coverage for such damages would be explicitly excluded by the policy. However, the Oregon Supreme Court found that the jury had been instructed that it could not award damages for the contractor’s own faulty workmanship. The court declined to give the insurer a chance to attempt to reclassify the nature of these damages. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Austin D. Moody, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Moody may be contacted at adm@sdvlaw.com

    Property Damage to Insured's Own Work is Not Covered

    May 27, 2019 —
    The Michigan Court of Appeals found there was no coverage for a lawsuit filed against the insureds for faulty workmanship. Skanska United States Bldg. v M.A.P. Mech. Contrs., 2019 Mich App. LEXIS 529 (Mich. Ct. App. March 19, 2019). Contractor Skanska United States Building was the construction manager on a renovation project for the medical center. The heating and cooling portion of the project was subcontracted to M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors (MAP). MAP had a CGL policy from Amerisure Insurance Company. Skanska and the medical center were named as additional insureds on the policy. After installation of the steam boiler and related piping, it was discovered that the heating system did not function property. Skanska discovered that MAP had installed some of the expansion joints backward, causing damage to concrete, steel, and heating system. The medical center sent a demand to MAP. Skanska performed the repairs and replaced the damaged property. Skanska then submitted a claim to Amerisure, which was denied. 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

    Subcontractors Have a Duty to Clarify Ambiguities in Bid Documents

    August 19, 2015 —
    Several months ago, I wrote about an escalator subcontractor that sued a general contractor, demanding payment for work completed based on approved shop drawings. The trial court agreed with the subcontractor, but the general contractor appealed. Ten months later, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the subcontractor had a duty to bring to the general contractor’s attention major discrepancies or errors they detect in the bid documents.
    “The subcontractor failed to disclose ambiguities in the plans and must suffer the peril.”
    Construction Difficulties The subcontractor installed 32 inch escalators throughout the project, but the plans called for 40 inch escalators. The general contractor and subcontractor could not reach agreement on how the dispute should be resolved. The subcontractor sued the general to get paid for replacing the escalators and the general sued to subcontractor for concessions it had to pay to the owner. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    March 01, 2012 —

    The Harmon Towers project in Las Vegas was eventually halted short of the planned forty-seven stories after “it was determined that there was substantial defective construction, including defective installation of reinforcing steel throughout the Harmon.” The American Home Insurance Company and Lexington Insurance Company put forth a claim that they had no duty to defend Perini Construction, the builder of the defective Harmon Towers. Further, American Home seeks to recover the monies American reimbursed Perini. The United States District Court of Nevada ruled in the case of American Home Assurance Co. v. Perini Building on February 3, 2012.

    The two insurance companies covered Perini and its subcontractors, Century Steel, Pacific Coast Steel, and Ceco Concrete Construction. Century Steel was the initial subcontractor for the reinforcing steel; they were later acquired by Pacific Coast Steel. In this current case, Perini Construction is the sole defendant.

    Perini sought a dismissal of these claims, arguing that without the subcontractors joined to the case, “the Court cannot afford complete relief among existing parties.” The court rejected this claim, noting that the court can determine the duties of the insurance companies to Perini, which the court described as “separate and distinct from those of the subcontractors.” The subcontractors “have not claimed an interest in the subject matter of the action.” The court concluded that it could determine whether Perini was entitled or not to coverage without affecting the subcontractors. The court rejected Perini’s claim.

    Perini also asked the court to abstain from the case, arguing that it was better heard in a state court. The court noted that several considerations cover whether a case is heard in state or federal courts. The court noted that if the case weighed heavily on state law, the state courts would be the obvious location. Further, if there were a parallel action in the state courts, “there is a presumption that the whole suit should be heard in state courts.” This is, however, no parallel state suit, although the court noted that Perini has “threatened” to do so.

    However, the issue of who is to blame for the problems at Harmon Towers has not been resolved. The court concluded that until the “underlying action” was concluded, it was premature to consider the issues raised in this case while the earlier lawsuit was still in progress. The court denied Perini’s motion to dismiss the case. Given that the outcome of the earlier construction defect case may lead to further litigation in state court, the District Court granted Perini’s motion to abstain, but staying their judgment until the construction defect case is resolved.

    Read the court’s decision…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of