BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failure
    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


    Specification Challenge; Excusable Delay; Type I Differing Site Condition; Superior Knowledge

    New Homes in Palo Alto to Be Electric-Car Ready

    Insured's Complaint Against Flood Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Housing Starts in U.S. Little Changed From Stronger January

    If a Defect Occurs During Construction, Is It an "Occurrence?"

    Waiving Workers’ Compensation Immunity for Indemnity: Demystifying a Common and Scary-Looking Contract Term

    Supreme Court Finds Insurance Coverage for Intentional (and Despicable) Act of Contractor’s Employee

    Vacant Property and the Right of Redemption in Pennsylvania

    New Pedestrian, Utility Bridge Takes Shape on Everett Waterfront

    “Other Insurance” and Indemnity Provisions Determine Which Insurer Must Cover

    Courthouse Reporter Series: The Travails of Statutory Construction...Defining “Labor” under the Miller Act

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Insurer Must Defend Oil Company Against Entire Lawsuit

    Traub Lieberman Partner Gregory S. Pennington and Associate Emily A. Velcamp Obtain Summary Judgment in Favor of Residential Property Owners

    The 2024 Colorado Legislative Session Promises to be a Busy One for the Construction Industry and its Insurers

    Appraisers May Determine Causation

    A Court-Side Seat – Case Law Update (February 2022)

    Rescission of Policy for Misrepresentation in Application Reversed

    Fire Tests Inspire More Robust Timber Product Standard

    First Railroad Bridge Between Russia and China Set to Open

    Charles Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation

    #8 CDJ Topic: The Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case Concludes but Controversy Continues

    What You Need to Know About CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Regulations

    Taking Advantage of New Tax Credits and Prevailing Wage Bonuses Under the Inflation Reduction Act for Clean Energy Construction Projects

    Delaware District Court Finds CGL Insurer Owes Condo Builder a Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims — Based on the Subcontractor Exception to the Your Work Exclusion

    Haight’s Stevie Baris Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Northern California Rising Stars

    Anthony Luckie Speaks With Columbia University On Receiving Graduate Degree in Construction Administration Alongside His Father

    Apartment Building Damaged by Cable Installer’s Cherry Picker

    Defenses Raised Three-Years Too Late Estop Insurer’s Coverage Denial

    How Does Your Construction Contract Treat Float

    'There Was No Fighting This Fire,' California Survivor Says

    Rhode Island Affirms The Principle That Sureties Must be Provided Notice of Default Before They Can be Held Liable for Principal’s Default

    Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson

    Exploring the Future of Robotic Construction with Dr. Thomas Bock

    2018 Spending Plan Boosts Funding for Affordable Housing

    Crypto and NFTs Could Help People Become Real Estate Tycoons

    Water Leak Covered for First Thirteen Days

    Judgment for Insured Upheld After Insurer Rejects Claim for Hurricane Damage

    The G2G Year-End Roundup (2022)

    Potential Construction Liabilities Contractors Need to Know

    Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

    Understand Agreements in Hold Harmless and Indemnity Provisions

    California Superior Court Overrules Insurer's Demurrer on COVID-19 Claim

    Are “Green” Building Designations and Certifications Truly Necessary?

    Hawaii Federal District Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement on Volcano Damage

    #6 CDJ Topic: Construction Defect Legislative Developments

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation: A Redux

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

    Some Construction Contract Basics- Necessities and Pitfalls

    Washington Supreme Court Interprets Ensuing Loss Exception in All-Risk Property Insurance Policy

    Properly Trigger the Performance Bond
    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

    Ohio Condo Development Case Filed in 2011 is Scheduled for Trial

    April 09, 2014 —
    In a recent hearing regarding the Cleveland, Ohio case Stonebridge Towers Homeowners v K&D Group, Judge John O’Donnell scheduled a trial for May 28th. Lead attorney for the homeowners stated that they would settle for “ten million and change,” according to The Plain Dealer. However, an attorney for K&D Group retorted that “the damaged condos could be fixed for much less money.” “The lawsuit claims negligent design, poor construction and multiple defects resulted from fraud and bribe-paying by the developers,” reported Plain Dealer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Contract Language and Insurance Coverage Must Be Consistent

    July 30, 2015 —
    How often do you review both the additional insured language in the contract and the insurance policy provided by a subcontractor? My guess is, unless the project has gone off the rails, NEVER. Well, perhaps you should to make absolutely sure the extent of the subcontractor’s insurance obligations and whether those obligations are being fulfilled. This point was recently addressed in a recent DRI article analyzing the Deepwater Horizon/BP lawsuit. My partner, Anne Marie O’Brien, also blogged on this a few months ago. As you will recall, Transocean’s Deepwater Horizon oil-drilling rig exploded, killing 11 workers, and polluted the Gulf of Mexico. BP demanded that Transocean’s insurer pay for the loss. Transocean’s insurer said no, and the litigation ensued, in state court, federal court, and the Texas Supreme Court. It was quite an odyssey of litigation. 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

    More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?

    February 03, 2020 —
    As is always the case when I attend the Virginia State Bar’s annual construction law seminar, I come away from it with a few posts on recent cases and their implications. The first of these is not a construction case, but has implications relating to the state project related statute of limitations and indemnification issues for construction contracts brought out in stark relief in the now infamous Hensel Phelps case. In Radiance Capital Receivables Fourteen, LLC v. Foster the Court considered a waiver of the statute of limitations found in a loan contract. The operative facts are that the waiver was found in a Continuing Guaranty contract and that the default happened more than 5 years prior to the date that Radiance filed suit to enforce its rights. When the defendants filed a plea in bar stating that the statute of limitations had run and therefore the claim was barred, Radiance of course argued that the defendants had waived their right to bring such a defense. The defendants responded that the waiver was invalid in that it violated the terms of Va. Code 8.01-232 that states among other things:
    an unwritten promise not to plead the statute shall be void, and a written promise not to plead such statute shall be valid when (i) it is made to avoid or defer litigation pending settlement of any case, (ii) it is not made contemporaneously with any other contract, and (iii) it is made for an additional term not longer than the applicable limitations period.
    The Circuit Court and ultimately the Supreme Court agreed with the defendants. In doing so, the Virginia Supreme Court rejected arguments of estoppel and an argument that a “waiver” is not a “promise not to plead.” 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

    Reminder: Pay if Paid Not All Encompassing (but Could it be?)

    December 09, 2019 —
    On numerous occasions, I have discussed the need to be careful with so called “pay if paid” clauses in construction contracts. While such clauses are enforceable in Virginia (when phrased correctly), there are exceptions and limitations (for instance in the Miller Act context). One such exception (that I frankly would have thought to be obvious) is that such clauses do not protect a general contractor from paying all subcontractors. Such a clause only protects a general contractor from payment to those subs for whose work the general contractor has not been paid. In other words, if a general contractor has been paid by an owner for a particular subcontractors work, it cannot use the pay if paid clause to deny payment even in the event that other subcontractors were deficient in their work or the owner has failed to pay the general contractor in full. In Precision Contractors Inc. v. Masterbuilt Companies Inc. (PDF) the Fairfax, VA Circuit Court reiterated this principal stating that nothing in the contract suggests that either party to the lawsuit had any intention to shift the risk of non-payment by the owner or non-performance of other subcontractors to the plaintiff (Precision). 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

    Philadelphia Court Rejects Expert Methodology for Detecting Asbestos

    October 11, 2017 —
    Lawsuits against talcum powder manufacturers have recently made headlines for the multimillion dollar verdicts returned in favor of plaintiffs with ovarian cancer. However, lawsuits brought by individuals with mesothelioma who did not work in occupations traditionally associated with asbestos exposure represent another potential liability for talcum powder manufacturers and retailers. In such cases, expert testimony linking mesothelioma to trace amounts of asbestos in talcum powder should be carefully scrutinized. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Christian Singewald, Wesley Payne and Jonathan Woy Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Payne may be contacted at paynew@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Woy may be contacted at woyj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Withdrawal of an Admission in California May Shift Costs—Including Attorneys’ Fees—Incurred in Connection with the Withdrawal

    January 24, 2018 —
    Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300, a court may permit a party to withdraw an admission made in response to a request for admission upon noticed motion. The court may only do so, however, “if it determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300(b). The court may also “impose conditions on the granting of the motion that are just, including, but not limited to . . . (2) An order that the costs of any additional discovery be borne in whole or in part by the party withdrawing or amending the admission.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300(c). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

    Subcontractor Exception to Your Work Exclusion Paves the Way for Coverage

    April 03, 2013 —
    In a brief opinion, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's denial of coverage for construction defects. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. R.I. Pools Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5680 (2nd Cir. March 21, 2013). The insured, R.I. Pools, employed outside companies to supply concrete and to shoot the concrete into the ground. During the summer of 2006, it obtained its concrete from one subcontractor and used another to shoot the concrete. In 2009, nineteen customers of R.I. Pools from 2006 complained damage to their pools, including cracking, flaking, and deteriorating concrete. Scottsdale sought a declaratory judgment against R.I. Pools that it had no obligations under the policy to defend or indemnify for claims related to cracks in the pools. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Granting of Lodestar Multiplier in Coverage Case Affirmed

    November 14, 2018 —
    The trial court's use of a multiplier in awarding fees to the insured was affirmed by the Florida Court of Appeal. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Laguerre, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 11794 (Fla. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2018). Following Hurricane Wilma, the insured made a claim for wind damage to her insurer, Citizens. Citizens investigated the claim and paid $8,400.77. The insured then demanded an appraisal and submitted an appraisal estimate in the amount of $60,256.79. There was no response to the appraisal demand. 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