BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering 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


    Georgia Federal Court Holds That Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage Under Liability Policy for Claims Arising From Discharge of PFAS Into Waterways

    Floating Crane on Job in NYC's East River Has a Storied Past of Cold War Intrigue

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose in June at a Slower Pace

    The Real Estate Crisis in North Dakota's Man Camps

    Subcontractor Not Estopped from Enforcing Lien Not Listed In Bankruptcy Petition

    Resolve to Say “No” This Year

    The Buck Stops Over There: Have Indemnitors Become the Insurers of First and Last Resort?

    Illinois Lawmakers Approve Carpenters Union's Legislation to Help Ensure Workers Are Paid What They're Owed

    Buyer's Demolishing of Insured's Home Not Barred by Faulty Construction Exclusion

    The Five-Step Protocol to Reopening a Business

    New York Court Permits Asbestos Claimants to Proceed Against Insurers with Buyout Agreements

    Building Inspector Refuses to State Why Apartments Condemned

    Court of Appeals Discusses Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in Public Works Contracting

    Mandatory Attorneys’ Fee Award for Actions Brought Under the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act

    The Job is Substantially Complete, the Subcontract was Never Signed, the Subcontractor Wants to be Paid—Now What?

    Pentagon Has Big Budget for Construction in Colorado

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives First Tier Ranking by U.S. News and World Reports

    Triple Points to the English Court of Appeal for Clarifying the Law on LDs

    Construction Picks Up Post-COVID and So Do Claims (and A Construction Lawyer Can Help)

    U.S. Homeownership Rate Rises for First Time in Two Years

    Ready, Fire, Aim: The Importance of Targeting Your Delay Notices

    Celebrities Lose Case in Construction Defect Arbitration

    Insurer Must Pay To Defend Product Defect Claims From Date Of Product Installation

    Record-Setting Construction in Fargo

    New York Nonprofit Starts Anti-Scaffold Law Video Series

    New Jersey Rules that Forensic Lab Analysts Can’t be Forced to Testify

    Wood Product Rotting in New Energy Efficient Homes

    Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable

    Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

    When is a Residential Subcontractor not Subject to the VCPA? Read to Find Out

    Malerie Anderson Named to D Magazine’s 2023 Best Lawyers Under 40

    New Stormwater Climate Change Tool

    Energy Company Covered for Business Interruption Losses Caused by Fire and Resulting in Town-Ordered Shutdown

    Denial of Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens Does Not Automatically Create Basis for Certiorari Relief

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Climate Change Lawsuit Barred by “Pollution Exclusion”

    Steven Cvitanovic to Present at NASBP Virtual Seminar

    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Lets Broad General Release Stand in SB 800 Case

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at Slower Pace in May

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Tar Escaping From Roof

    Complying With Data Breach Regulations in the Construction Industry

    Open & Known Hazards Under the Kinsman Exception to Privette

    An Occurrence Under Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy Is Based on the Language in the Policy

    Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage Where Ordinary Negligence is Inseparably Intertwined With Professional Service

    Is There Direct Physical Loss Under A Property Policy When COVID-19 is Present?

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: RACHEL CLANCY

    SEC Climate Change Disclosure Letter Foreshadows Anticipated Regulatory Changes

    Unrelated Claims Against Architects Amount to Two Different Claims

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

    No Escape: California Court of Appeals Gives a Primary CGL Insurer’s “Other Insurance” Clause Two Thumbs Down

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2022 New York – Metro Super Lawyers®
    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

    What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

    March 18, 2019 —
    In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer is that “If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added). But how do you determine whether a plaintiff obtained a more favorable judgment when the 998 offer is silent with respect to whether it includes costs? In Martinez v. Eatlite One, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1181, 1182–83, the defendant made a 998 offer of $12,001 that was silent regarding the treatment of attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer, and the jury ultimately awarded plaintiff damages of $11,490. Id. In resolving the parties’ competing memoranda of costs and plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees, the trial court awarded plaintiff her costs and attorneys’ fees. Id. at 1182. The trial court reasoned that plaintiff had obtained a more favorable judgment than the 998 offer because she was entitled to pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees under the statute, which meant plaintiff’s ultimate recovery exceeded the 998 offer when added to the judgment. Id. at 1183. In other words, the court added plaintiff’s pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees to the $11,490 verdict for the purposes of determining whether the “judgment” was greater than the 998 offer of $12,001. Id. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

    Construction Attorneys Get an AI Assist in Document Crunch

    May 20, 2024 —
    Artificial intelligence is often touted as a gamechanger for construction processes, and Document Crunch, a company co-founded by a longtime construction attorney, is already changing up one key area: construction contracts. Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Los Angeles Construction Sites May Be on Fault Lines

    December 30, 2013 —
    California law prohibits building near or on top of earthquake fault lines, but Los Angeles County building officials may have used outdated information that misreported the location of certain faults. The Los Angeles Times reports that after their earlier articles on fault lines, the officials have started using newer maps. According to the older maps, an apartment building under construction on Brockton Avenue in Los Angeles is 1.9 miles away from the Santa Monica fault. But a more recent map, created by the state in 2010, shows that the fault line could potentially be right under the building site. The builders of another apartment building potentially located on the Santa Monica fault said that the city did not ask for a fault investigation. The Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety said that there was no official zone designation for the Santa Monica fault, and so did not require seismic studies. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Negligence Claim Not Barred by Gist of the Action Doctrine

    February 18, 2015 —
    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the insureds' negligence claim survived because it was not based upon breach of a duty created by the policy, but upon the alleged breach of a duty imposed by tort law. Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co,, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3319 (Dec. 15, 2014). After purchasing their home, the insureds obtained a homeowner's policy from Erie. A separate endorsement covered loss to the property caused by "fungi," which was included as any form of mold. The endorsement obligated Erie to pay up to $5,000 for loss caused by mold. The policy required Erie to pay the cost of testing the air to confirm the absence or presence of mold. If mold was present, Erie was to pay for the cost of removal, including the cost of tearing out any part of the property needed to gain access to the mold. While renovating the basement, the insureds discovered two areas of black mold in close proximity to leaking water pipes. Erie was notified and sent an adjuster to view the mold. The adjuster took no action, but returned a couple of days later with an engineer. The adjuster and engineer informed the insureds that the mold was harmless and that health problems associated with mold were a media frenzy and overblown. 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

    Legislation Update: S-865 Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey Passed by Both Houses-Awaiting Governor’s Signature

    July 02, 2018 —
    New Jersey is finally close to being among the many states with broad authority to develop or improve public projects through a Public-Private Partnership (P3) delivery method. This contracting model has stimulated growth and improvements in other States and led to the delivery of projects that may not otherwise have happened. Senate Bill 865 (“S-865”), after undergoing some last-minute amendments in a frenzied legislature dealing with budget and other critical issues, has passed in both houses of the Legislature and is waiting for Governor Murphy’s signature, which is expected shortly. The law will be effective 180 days from formal enactment. The administrative framework is now in place to make Public-Private Partnerships a reality in New Jersey. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Charney, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Charles F. Kenny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Charney may be contacted at scharney@pecklaw.com Mr. Kenny may be contacted at ckenny@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Crime Policy Insurance Quotes Falsely Represented the Scope of its Coverage

    July 13, 2020 —
    An Indiana businessman found out the hard way how far his insurance company was willing to go to avoid paying a claim after it misrepresented the coverage of a crime policy it sold to him. The quote for the policy indicated that it included coverage for losses resulting from computer hacking. Despite this representation, when the policyholder’s bank accounts were hacked, the insurer denied coverage on the ground that there was no provision for hacking coverage in the policy. Fortunately, the Indiana Court of Appeals recognized the insured’s right to argue before a jury that the insurer’s quotes falsely represented the scope of its coverage. In Metal Pro Roofing, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., Richard Cornett, principal of Metal Pro Roofing, LLC and Cornett Restoration, LLC (the “LLCs”), purchased a Cincinnati Insurance Company CinciPlus Crime XC+ Policy (the “Policy”). At the time Mr. Cornett purchased this coverage, and during all subsequent renewals, Cincinnati issued insurance quotes that stated:
    Cincinnati can insure your money and securities while at your premises, inside your bank and even off site in the custody of a courier. While you’ve taken precautions to protect your money and securities, you run the risk of loss from employees, robbers, burglars, computer hackers and even physical perils such as fire.
    Give yourself peace of mind with Cincinnati’s crime coverage to insure the money and securities you worked so hard to earn.
    Crime Expanded Coverage (XC®)Plus Endorsement $125.00.
    (Emphasis added.) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian J Clifford, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Mr. Clifford may be contacted at bjc@sdvlaw.com

    The Top 3 Trends That Will Impact the Construction Industry in 2024

    December 04, 2023 —
    As more than 40% of the current U.S. construction workforce will retire in the next decade, industry leaders need to equip themselves with the necessary resources to combat the shifting work environment.1 “Trends in the construction industry will fluctuate in the coming years, which can lead to additional risks for industry leaders. It will be important to think about how they can address any potential risk factors. A lot of leaders have been increasing their planning efforts and looking into technology solutions to combat the ongoing labor shortage,” said David DeSilva, head of construction at The Hartford. Here, he outlines the top three top trends for business leaders to watch in 2024. 1. Ongoing Labor Shortages Construction is an industry that traditionally has a high labor turnover rate, which means companies needs to hire more frequently. This only increases during labor shortages. The construction workforce is up against several factors, including an aging workforce and recruitment struggles. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights

    China Bans Tallest Skyscrapers Following Safety Concerns

    July 25, 2021 —
    China is prohibiting construction of the tallest skyscrapers to ensure safety following mounting concerns over the quality of some projects. The outright ban covers buildings that are taller than 500 meters (1,640 feet), the National Development and Reform Commission said in a notice Tuesday. Local authorities will also need to strictly limit building of towers that are more than 250 meters tall. The top economic planner cited quality problems and safety hazards in some developments stemming from loose oversight. A 72-story tower in Shenzhen was closed in May for checks following reports of unexplained wobbling, feeding concern about the stability of one of the technology hub’s tallest buildings. Construction of buildings exceeding 100 meters should strictly match the scale of the city where they will be located, along with its fire rescue capability, the commission said. “It’s primarily for safety,” said Qiao Shitong, an associate law professor at the University of Hong Kong who studies property and urban law. Extremely tall buildings “are more like signature projects for mayors and not necessarily efficient.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg