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


    Can a Lease Force a Tenant's Insurer to Defend the Landlord?

    What Types of “Damages Claims” Survive a Trustee’s Sale?

    Housing Prices Up through Most of Country

    Waiver Of Arbitration by Not Submitting Claim to Initial Decision Maker…Really!

    Are Proprietary Specifications Illegal?

    1 De Haro: A Case Study on Successful Cross-Laminated Timber Design and Construction in San Francisco

    South Africa Wants Payment From Colluding World Cup Builders

    Denver Passed the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “D’Oh!”

    Court Holds That Property Insurance Does Not Cover Economic Loss From Purchasing Counterfeit Vintage Wine

    Ex-Ironworkers Local President Sentenced to Prison Term for Extortion

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

    Limitations: There is a Point of No Return

    Dust Obscures Eleventh Circuit’s Ruling on “Direct Physical Loss”

    China Bans Tallest Skyscrapers Following Safety Concerns

    U.K. Construction Growth Unexpectedly Accelerated in January

    Balfour Taps Qinetiq’s Quinn as new CEO to Revamp Builder

    Construction Legislation Likely to Take Effect July 1, 2020

    Court Says No to Additional Lawyer in Las Vegas Fraud Case

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

    Insured Fails to Provide Adequate Proof of Water Damage Through Roof

    Peckar & Abramson Once Again Recognized Among Construction Executive’s “Top 50 Construction Law Firms™”

    Privileged Communications With a Testifying Client/Expert

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ranked on the 2017 "Best Law Firms" List by U.S. News - Best Lawyers

    Compliance with Building Code Included in Property Damage

    Insurer Ordered to Participate in Appraisal

    Update Regarding New York’s New Registration Requirement for Contractors and Subcontractors Performing Public Works and Covered Private Projects

    Texas Supreme Court Holds Stipulated Extrinsic Evidence May Be Considered in Determining Duty to Defend

    Caution to GCs! An Exception to Privette Can Leave You Open to Liability

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

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2021 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    Turkey Digs Out From a Catastrophe

    Sold Signs Fill Builder Lots as U.S. Confidence Rises: Economy

    NCCER Celebrates Construction Education Programs and Products in 2024

    A Proactive Approach to Construction Safety

    An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy

    7 Areas where Technology is Shifting the Construction Business

    How Does Weather Impact a Foundation?

    Luxury Homes Push City’s Building Permits Past $7.5 Million

    The New Jersey Theme Park Where Kids’ Backhoe Dreams Come True

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

    Miller Act Claim for Unsigned Change Orders

    Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

    ConsensusDOCS Updates its Forms

    Force Majeure Under the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic

    Uniwest Rides Again (or, Are Architects Subject to Va. Code Section 11-4.1?)

    Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

    Tightest Credit Market in 16 Years Rejects Bernanke’s Bid

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

    Motion for Summary Judgment Gets Pooped Upon
    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

    Statute of Limitations Bars Lender’s Subsequent Action to Quiet Title Against Junior Lienholder Mistakenly Omitted from Initial Judicial Foreclosure Action

    October 19, 2020 —
    A recently issued opinion by the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District tells a cautionary tale regarding a lender’s failure to name a junior lienholder in its initial judicial foreclosure action. In Cathleen Robin v. Al Crowell, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2020 WL 5951506, plaintiffs sued defendant, a junior lienholder, for quiet title, having failed to name him in the initial judicial foreclosure action. Defendant raised the statute of limitations defense, but the trial court found in favor of plaintiffs. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the 60-year statute of limitations which the trial court applied only applied to a nonjudicial trustee’s sale, and the trial court could not exercise the trustee’s power of sale after the expiration of the statute of limitations on a judicial action to foreclose. In 2006, plaintiffs loaned Steve and Marta Weinstein (the “Weinsteins”) $450,000, secured by a deed of trust on one parcel of the Weinstein’s property. In 2007, the Weinsteins and defendant Al Crowell (“Crowell”) recorded a second deed of trust on the property, securing a promissory note executed by the Weinsteins in 2004. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lyndsey Torp, Snell & Wilmer
    Ms. Torp may be contacted at ltorp@swlaw.com

    A Matter Judged: Subrogating Insurers Should Beware of Prior Suits Involving the Insured

    March 25, 2024 —
    In New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co. v. Lallygone LLC, No. A-2607-22, 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 120, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey (Appellate Division) considered whether New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (the carrier) could bring a subrogation action after its insured, Efmorfopo Panagiotou (the insured), litigated and tried claims related to the same underlying incident with the same defendant, Lallygone LLC (the defendant). The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s finding that the prior lawsuit extinguished the carrier’s claims. In Lallygone LLC, the insured hired the defendant to renovate a detached garage on his property. In March 2022, while the defendant’s employees were removing existing concrete slabs, the garage collapsed. After the incident, the insured stopped paying the defendant. In addition, the insured filed a claim with the carrier, which ultimately paid the insured over $180,000 for the damage under its property policy. The carrier sent a subrogation notice letter to the defendant. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    NYC Developer Embraces Religion in Search for Condo Sites

    October 15, 2014 —
    Extell Development Co., the New York builder that set off a luxury residential construction boom with its One57 project, is expanding its reach on Manhattan’s west side with a pending purchase of a synagogue and a plan to redevelop a Baptist church. Extell is in advanced talks to buy the Congregation Habonim synagogue at 44 W. 66th St. in a deal valued at $75 million, with plans to build condominiums on the site, according to documents the synagogue filed in New York State Supreme Court seeking permission for a sale. Extell also is negotiating with Calvary Baptist Church for a potential project at its 123 W. 57th St. site, on the same block as One57, the church’s 2014 annual report shows. Religious institutions across New York are pursuing real estate sales as land prices escalate. Manhattan development sites sold for an average of $657 a square foot in the third quarter, up 29 percent from a year earlier and a record for the period, Massey Knakal Realty Services said this month. Three purchases completed in the quarter were for more than $1,000 a square foot, the firm’s data show. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg
    Ms. Carmiel may be contacted at ocarmiel1@bloomberg.net

    The Credibility of Your Expert (Including Your Delay Expert) Matters in Construction Disputes

    October 03, 2022 —
    Here is a quote from a judge in an order after the bench trial of a complex construction dispute between a prime contractor and subcontractor on a federal project:
    The evidence received in this case demonstrates the dynamic nature of complicated construction projects. At every step, the details matter, and coordination and cooperation among the companies tasked with performing the job is essential. Thankfully, as even this case shows, most disagreements that arise as projects evolve are handled during construction, far away from a courthouse, by the professionals who know best how to achieve the ultimate goal of a completed project.
    U.S. f/u/b/o McKenney’s, Inc. v. Leebcor Services, LLC, 2022 WL 3549980, *1 (E.D. Va. 2022).
    This is a true statement. A statement that parties should remember as they navigate the nuances of a complicated construction project and dispute. The facts of the case, however, would hardly be construed as a win for either party. Something else for parties to consider as they navigate the nuances of a complicated construction project and dispute. 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

    City Drops Impact Fees to Encourage Commercial Development

    November 08, 2013 —
    The Orvido, Florida city council wants to encourage commercial development, and they’re willing to do it by discouraging residential development. The impact fees for commercial buildings have dropped sharply, the Orlando Sentinel notes that for a 50,000 square-foot office building, the city is reducing the impact fee from $2,890 to $1,575, a drop of $1,313, nearly half. Meanwhile, the impact fee for single-family homes has seen an increase of seven percent, going from $3,195 to $3.433. The city is clear about its reasons. “We’re very heavy on the residential side. We want to have more high-paying jobs come into the city,” said Keith Britton, a member of the council. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Denies Insured's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Seeking to Compel Appraisal

    March 13, 2023 —
    The court denied the insured's motion to dismiss after the insurer filed suit to compel an appraisal. Allied Trust Ins. Co. v. Tsang, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 352 (E.D. La. Jan. 3, 2023). The insureds reported damage to their property arising from Hurricane Ida. The insurer, Allied Trust, investigated and determined that the covered damage was $1,978.18, which was less that the policy's deductible. The insureds estimated that the covered damage was $135,270.78. Allied Trust invoked the appraisal provision. Allied Trust later filed suit alleging the insureds failed to comply and participate in the appraisal. The insureds moved to dismiss the complaint as moot. In their motion, the insureds argued that because they were now complying with the appraisal clause, all relief sought by Allied Trust had either already occurred or was currently underway. 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

    Michigan: Identifying and Exploiting the "Queen Exception" to No-Fault Subrogation

    May 13, 2014 —
    In Michigan, an employee’s entitlement to compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident is governed by both the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act of 1969, MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 418.801 et seq., and Chapter 31 of The Insurance Code of 1956, MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 500.3101 et seq., commonly referred to as the “no-fault act.” Polkosnik v. United Canada Ins. Co., 421 N.W.2d 241, 242 (Mich. App. 1988). PIP1 benefits payable arising from a motor vehicle accident in Michigan include, principally, (1) medical benefits unlimited in amount and duration, and (2) 85% of lost wages for up to three years. See DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, Brief Explanation of Michigan No-Fault Insurance. As of October 2013, lost wages are capped at $5,282 per month. Id. Such benefits constitute an injured worker’s “economic loss.” See generally Wood v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 668 N.W.2d 353, 355 (Mich. 2003). Michigan’s no-fault legislation is no different than other no-fault legislation in regard to its purpose: The automobile insurer pays without any right of reimbursement out of any third party tort recovery. Sibley v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch., 427 N.W.2d 528, 530 (Mich. 1988). Moreover, just like in New York, for example, “where benefits are provided from other sources pursuant to state or federal law, the amount paid by the other source reduces the automobile insurer’s responsibility.” Id. at 530. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com

    The Ups and Downs of Elevator Maintenance Contractor's Policy Limits

    October 03, 2022 —
    The December 2021 First Department decision in Nouveau Elevator Indus. v. New York Marine & General Ins. Co. is pushing some buttons in the elevator industry, given the significant implications it may have on the adequacy of policy limits for elevator service companies operating in New York state. The Court held in Nouveau that monthly elevator maintenance work performed under an ongoing service agreement is considered “completed operations” for purposes of applying policy limits. Specifically, the Court found that the per location policy limits are not implicated here, and instead held that the products-completed operations aggregate limit applies to completed work, which expressly includes “that part of the work done at a job site [that] has been put to its intended use.” Facts of the Case Nouveau provides elevator maintenance and service in the greater New York city region. Its work is done in multiple buildings and locations throughout the city. Nouveau purchased six commercial general liability (CGL) policies from New York Marine for consecutive one-year periods. Each of the CGL policies provides a liability limit of $1 million, with an aggregate limit of $2 million, per accident or occurrence. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Sarah J. Markham, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com Ms. Markham may be contacted at SMarkham@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of