BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut building code 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


    7 Sustainability Ideas for Modular Classrooms in the Education Industry (guest post)

    More on Duty to Defend a Subcontractor

    Residential Building Sector: Peaking or Soaring?

    AAA Revises its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures

    Home Prices on the Rise

    Plaza Construction Negotiating Pay Settlement for Florida Ritz-Carlton Renovation

    Seven Former North San Diego County Landfills are Leaking Contaminants

    The Right to Repair Act Isn’t Out for the Count, Yet. Homebuilders Fight Back

    #10 CDJ Topic: Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company

    Environmental Roundup – April 2019

    Bert L. Howe & Associates to Join All-Star Panel at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Rainwater Collecting on Rooftop is not Subject to Policy's Flood Sublimits

    No Damages for Delay May Not Be Enforceable in Virginia

    Search in Florida Collapse to Take Weeks; Deaths Reach 90

    Subcontractor Allowed to Sue Designer for Negligence: California Courts Chip Away at the Economic Loss Doctrine (Independent Duty Rule)

    ABC Chapter President Comments on Miami Condo Collapse

    School Board Settles Construction Defect Suit

    Obama Asks for $302 Billion to Fix Bridges and Potholes

    Residential Contractors, Be Sure to Have these Clauses in Your Contracts

    Details Matter: The Importance of Strictly Following Public Bid Statutes

    Claim for Consequential Damages Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Filing Lien Foreclosure Lawsuit After Serving Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    Construction Defect Reform Dies in Nevada Senate

    ISO’s Flood Exclusion Amendments and Hurricane Ian Claims

    Client Alert: Release of Liability Agreement Extinguishes Duty of Ordinary Care

    EEOC Chair Issues New Report “Building for the Future: Advancing Equal Employment Opportunity in the Construction Industry”

    Biden Administration Issues Buy America Guidance for Federal Infrastructure Funds

    Implied Warranties for Infrastructure in Florida Construction Defect Claims

    Pinnacle Controls in Verano

    Top Talked-About Tech at the 2023 ABC Joint Tech Summit

    Florida Court Gives Parties Assigned a Subrogation Claim a Math Lesson

    Be Careful With Construction Fraud Allegations

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    Newmeyer & Dillion Selected to 2017 OCBJ’s Best Places to Work List

    Welcome to SubTropolis: The Massive Business Complex Buried Under Kansas City

    Critical Materials for the Energy Transition: Of “Rare Earths” and Even Rarer Minerals

    State of Texas’ Claims Time Barred by 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act

    Triggering Duty to Advance Costs Same Standard as Duty to Defend

    Home Prices in U.S. Rose 0.3% in August From July, FHFA Says

    Texas School District Accepts Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Western Specialty Contractors Branches in San Francisco and Cleveland Take Home Top Industry Honors

    President Trump Nullifies “Volks Rule” Regarding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Recordkeeping Requirements

    The Partial Building Collapse of the 12-Story Florida Condo

    Apartment Boom in Denver a Shortcut Around Condo Construction Defect Suits?

    Nevada’s Changing Liability Insurance Landscape—State Insurance Regulator Issues Emergency Regulation and Guidance Addressing Controversial “Defense-Within-Limits” Legislation

    Replacing Coal Plants with Renewables Is Cheaper 80% of the Time

    Cold Stress Safety and Protection

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 3- The Last Straw

    Existence of “Duty” in Negligence Action is Question of Law

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Insurer Not Required to Show Prejudice from an Insured’s Late Notice When the Parties Contract for a Specific Reporting Period

    September 09, 2019 —
    The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Firm’s insurer client on an issue of first impression in Texas. The issue before the trial court was whether, under Texas law, an insurer is required to demonstrate prejudice resulting from an insured’s failure to comply with an agreed term set in an endorsement to the parties’ insurance contract establishing a specific time limit for an insured to give the insurer notice of a claim. The case involved alleged damage to an insured’s commercial property from a hailstorm. The insured did not report the alleged loss to its insurer until approximately 17 months after the date of loss. The insurer denied the claim based on a one-year notice requirement in a policy endorsement. The Texas Windstorm or Hail Loss Conditions Amendment Endorsement stated that:
    In addition to your obligation to provide us with prompt notice of loss or damage, with respect to any claim where notice of the claim is reported to us more than one year after the reported date of loss or damage, this policy shall not provide coverage for such claims.
    The insured sued the insurer in Houston federal court, alleging causes of action for breach of contract and violations of the Texas Insurance Code. The insured argued the insurer was required to show prejudice from the insured’s late notice; the insurer argued that a showing of prejudice was not required. The trial court recognized that this issue had not been decided by the Texas Supreme Court of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Raney, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Raney may be contacted at craney@grsm.com

    Massachusetts Roofer Killed in Nine-story Fall

    January 08, 2019 —
    A 41-year-old roofer from Haverhill, Mass. fell through a roof hole nine stories to his death on Dec. 18 while working on an apartment building project in Haverhill, a city north of Boston. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Johanna Knapschaefer, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Replevin Actions: What You Should Know

    November 08, 2021 —
    A contractor client of White and Williams recently found itself in a prickly situation. They had default terminated a subcontractor on a major commercial project and withheld payment to that subcontractor on an outstanding invoice as permitted under the terms of the subcontract until the project was completed. Clearly irate over being terminated, the subcontractor walked-off of the project with thousands of dollars’ worth of project materials and equipment that had been paid for by the owner. While on some projects this may amount to nothing more than an annoyance or inconvenience, in this case it was a significant problem because some of the wrongfully removed materials were custom manufactured overseas and not easily replaceable. The client therefore needed to take immediate action to retrieve the stolen materials so that the project would not be delayed. Specifically, it needed to file a replevin action against the subcontractor. A replevin action is a little known but powerful area of the law. In its simplest terms, replevin is a procedure whereby seized goods may be provisionally restored to their owner pending the outcome of an action to determine the rights of the parties concerned. The requirements of a replevin action differ by jurisdiction. For example, in Pennsylvania, the Rules of Civil Procedure devote an entire section to replevin actions and spell out in precise detail the steps that must be taken. While you should be sure to strictly comply with the rules in your jurisdiction, here are a few general points to keep in mind:
    • Where to File: A replevin action is typically commenced by filing a complaint in the appropriate jurisdiction. Generally speaking, it is best to file the action in the jurisdiction where the improperly seized materials are being held. If that location is unknown, you can also typically file the action in the jurisdiction where the project is located.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig H. O'Neill, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. O'Neill may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com

    Navigating the New Landscape: How AB 12 and SB 567 Impact Landlords and Tenants in California

    March 11, 2024 —
    There are various changes in the Landlord-Tenant laws in CA that became effective in 2024. For the purposes of this article, I wanted to focus on Assembly Bill (AB) 12 and Senate Bill (SB) 567 only. Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed AB 12 into law, a legislation that limits the amount landlords can charge for security deposits to just one month’s rent for unfurnished apartments. While the law aims to make housing more accessible, it raises several concerns for landlords and tenants alike. AB 12, was authored by Assemblyman Matt Haney, D-San Francisco; it passed both the Senate and the Assembly houses in September. The legislation introduces a notable shift from existing law, under which landlords can charge up to two months’ rent for an unfurnished unit and three months’ rent for a furnished one. This exception does not apply when the prospective tenant is a military service member, however. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sharon Oh-Kubisch, Kahana Feld
    Ms. Oh-Kubisch may be contacted at sokubisch@kahanafeld.com

    Proposed California Legislation Would Eliminate Certain Obstacles to Coverage for Covid-19 Business Income Losses

    July 20, 2020 —
    On July 2, 2020, the California Legislature amended California Assembly Bill 1552 to help policyholders seeking business interruption coverage for their COVID-19 losses. The draft legislation states the need for the legislation to go into immediate effect in "order to protect the solvency of businesses that were forced to close their doors or limit business" due to the pandemic. If adopted, the proposed legislation would apply to all commercial insurance policies providing coverage for business interruption in effect on and after March 4, 2020. The proposed legislation would create rebuttable presumptions in favor of coverage for losses due to COVID-19 under Business Income, Extra Expense, Civil Authority and Ingress and Egress policy provisions. For instance, the proposed legislation would create presumptions that COVID-19 was present at the insured premises and caused damage to the insured property. The draft legislation also specifies that the virus shall not be considered a pollutant unless the policy specifies otherwise. The ultimate impact of the draft legislation is unclear however, given that it specifically "does not affect the applicability of any policy provision, including any language addressing loss or damage caused by a virus." For additional information, you can consult with a Task Force attorney by emailing NDCovid19Response@ndlf.com or contacting our office directly at 949-854-7000. About Newmeyer Dillion For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's success and bottom line. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com. Reprinted courtesy of James S. Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion and Alan H. Packer, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com Mr. Packer may be contacted at alan.packer@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Application of Set-Off When a Defendant Settles in Multiparty Construction Dispute

    January 05, 2017 —
    The defense of set-off is an important defense in construction disputes, particularly multiparty disputes. For more information on this defense, please check out this article as it explains the application of set-off in civil disputes in detail. The issue of set-off will come up in a multiparty dispute when a plaintiff settles with one or more of the defendants. The remaining defendant(s) wants the benefit of that settlement to set-off and reduce any judgment against it. An example of this scenario can be found in Escadote I Corp. v. Ocean Three Limited Partnership, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D23a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). In this case, an owner of a condominium unit sued the condominium association, the developer, and the general contractor for water intrusion and mold infestation. The claim against the condominium association was the only claim that entitled the owner to attorney’s fees pursuant to its lawsuit (thus, attorney’s fees were isolated to only that claim against the association). During trial, the owner settled with the association. In entering a settlement, the owner smartly allocated the settlement amount such that $500 was allocated to its principal damages and $374,500 was allocated to its attorney’s fees. The owner then obtained a jury verdict against the contractor and developer for approximately $2M, jointly and severally, and the contractor and developer wanted the entire $375,000 settlement amount with the association to be set-off from the $2M verdict. The trial court set-off the entire $375,000 from the jury verdict when entering judgment. The appellate court reversed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

    URGENT: 'Catching Some Hell': Hurricane Michael Slams Into Florida

    October 16, 2018 —
    Panama City, Fla. (AP) -- Powerful Hurricane Michael slammed into the Florida Panhandle with terrifying winds of 155 mph Wednesday, splintering homes and submerging neighborhoods before continuing its destructive march inland across the Southeast. It was the most powerful hurricane to hit the continental U.S. in nearly 50 years and at least one death was reported during its passage. Supercharged by abnormally warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the Category 4 storm crashed ashore in the early afternoon near Mexico Beach, a tourist town about midway along the Panhandle, a 200-mile (320-kilometer) stretch of white-sand beach resorts, fishing towns and military bases. After it ravaged the Panhandle, Michael entered south Georgia as a Category 3 hurricane — the most powerful in recorded history for that part of the neighboring state. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    Waiving The Right to Arbitrate Under Federal Law

    November 08, 2021 —
    If there is an arbitration provision in your contract that you want to enforce, you do not want to take action inconsistent with those rights as this could give rise to a waiver argument, i.e., that you waived your rights to arbitrate, particularly if the other party has been prejudiced. Under federal policy and law, establishing waiver requires the party arguing waiver to “bear a heavy burden of proof.” U.S. f/u/b/o John Wayne Construction, G.S.A. Division, LLC v. Federal Ins. Co., 2021 WL 4526727 (M.D.Fla. 2021) quoting Stone v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 898 F.2d 1542, 1543 (11th Cir. 1990). “To determine whether the right to arbitrate has been waived, courts apply a two part test: i) whether, “‘under the totality of the circumstances,’ the party ‘has acted inconsistently with the arbitration right’”; and ii) “whether, by doing so, that party ‘has in some way prejudiced the other party.’” Id. quoting Ivax Corp. V. B. Braun of Am., Inc., 286 F.3d 1309, 1315-16 (11th Cir. 2002). Substantial participation in litigation prior to invoking the right to arbitrate supports a party acting inconsistent with the right to arbitrate. Id. And, “‘[p]rejudice has been found in situations where the party seeking arbitration allows the opposing party to undergo the types of litigation expenses that arbitration was designed to alleviate.’” Id. quoting Morewitz v. W. of Eng. Ship Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass’n (Luxembourg), 62 F.3d 1356, 1366 (11th Cir. 1995). Hence the heavy burden for a party to support to prove waiver– establishing both substantial participation in litigation that is inconsistent with the right to arbitrate AND prejudice. 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