BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield 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


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

    Nevada’s Home Building Industry can Breathe Easier: No Action on SB250 Leaves Current Attorney’s Fees Provision Intact

    Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

    Flood Sublimit Applies, Seawater Corrosion to Amtrak's Equipment Not Ensuing Loss

    West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar Announced for 2014

    Insurance Agent Sued for Lapse in Coverage after House Collapses

    Congratulations to Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, Peter Brown, Karen Baytosh, and Associate Matthew Cox for Their Inclusion in 2022 Best Lawyers!

    Unfair Risk Allocation on Design-Build Projects

    Antidiscrimination Clause Required in Public Works and Goods and Services Contracts­ –Effective January 1, 2024

    Scott Saylin Expands Employment Litigation and Insurance Litigation Team at Payne & Fears

    Atlantic City Faces Downward Spiral With Revel’s Demise

    New ConsensusDocs 242 Design Professional Change Order Form Helps Facilitate Compensation for Changes in Design Services

    Subcontractor’s Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California

    When an Insurer Proceeds as Subrogee, Defendants Should Not Assert Counterclaims Against the Insured/Subrogor

    Termination of Construction Contracts

    Federal Miller Act Payment Bond Claim: Who Gets Paid and Who Does Not? What Are the Deadlines?

    Biden Unveils $2.3 Trillion American Jobs Plan

    Paris ‘Locks of Love’ Overload Bridges, Threatening Structures

    Colorado General Assembly Sets Forth Prerequisites for an Insurance Company to Use Failure to Cooperate as a Defense to a Claim for First Party Insurance Benefits

    Choice of Laws Test Mandates Application of California’s Continuous and Progressive Trigger of Coverage to Asbestos Claims

    “For What It’s Worth”

    Lien Law Unlikely To Change — Yet

    Mediation Confidentiality Bars Malpractice Claim but for How Long?

    General Liability Alert: A Mixed Cause of Action with Protected and Non-Protected Activity Not Subject to Anti-SLAPP Motion

    How Many New Home Starts are from Teardowns?

    NY Appellate Court Holds Common Interest Privilege Applies to Parties to a Merger

    Couple Perseveres to Build Green

    California Posts Nation’s Largest Gain in Construction Jobs

    Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien “Waivers” and “Releases”: What’s the Difference?

    Work without Permits may lead to Problems Later

    Study Finds San Francisco Bay is Sinking Faster than Expected

    Construction Defect Claim Must Be Defended Under Florida Law

    Administrative and Environmental Law Cases Decided During the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term

    Update: Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    Recycled Water and New Construction. New Standards Being Considered

    A Few Green Building Notes

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

    West Coast Casualty’s 25th Construction Defect Seminar Has Begun

    Addenda to Construction Contracts Can Be an Issue

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/06/21)

    Claim for Collapse After Demolition of Building Fails

    Hawaii Supreme Court Bars Insurers from Billing Policyholders for Uncovered Defense Costs

    Property Damage Caused By Construction Next Door Covered as Ensuing Loss

    Winners Announced in Seattle’s Office-to-Residential Call for Ideas Contest

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Wrap Music to an Insurer’s Ears?”

    Florida trigger

    Kushner Cos. Probed Over Harassment of Low-Income Tenants

    Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage

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

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Fairfield's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Bond Principal Necessary on a Mechanic’s Lien Claim

    October 23, 2018 —
    As anyone that reads this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens are a big part of the Virginia landscape for a construction attorney like me. One option for dealing with a mechanic’s lien here in Virginia that we have not discussed but so often is the ability to “bond off” a lien. In short, the Virginia statute allows a party to essentially substitute a bond valued at a court set multiple of the principal amount of the mechanic’s lien for the memorandum. In exchange, the lien is released of record. Any enforcement action can still proceed with security for the claimant and the property owner feeling better about things because there will be no lien on the title to the land. In many ways this process provides an easier path to resolution for both owner and claimant. First of all, the claimant does not have to deal with a bank or other interest holders in the property (though a recent case discussed below reminds us that certain other parties are necessary). Second of all, the owner does not have the cloud on the title of a mechanic’s lien that may have been filed by a subcontractor over which he has no control. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Eighth Circuit Affirms Judgment for Bad Faith after Insured's Home Destroyed by Fire

    January 21, 2019 —
    The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that the insurer acted in bad faith when it denied the insured's claim based upon misrepresentations in the application after destruction of his house by fire. Hayes v. Metropolitan Pro. and Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31813 (8th Cir. Nov. 9, 2018). Hayes' home was insured by Met under a homeowner's policy. Hayes used the detached garage as part of a home base for his plumbing business. He also rented out the second and third levels of the residence to a tenant and her two children. When Hayes applied for the policy in 2007, Met argues he indicated on the application that the premises were not used to conduct business, and were not used as rental property. 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

    Thank You!

    February 28, 2022 —
    I would like to thank the Construction Law Subsection of the Los Angeles County Bar Association for awarding me today (on 2/22/22 nonetheless) the 2022 James Acret Award for Outstanding Achievement in Construction Law Legal Writing. The nominating committee of the subsection includes a veritable Who’s Who of construction law attorneys including Donna Kirkner (Chair), Michael J. Bayard, Theresa C. Tate, Aaron J. Flores, Marilyn Klinger, Marion Hack, John D. Hanover, James C. Earle, L. Adam Winegard, Bernard S. Kamine and Ashley B. Jordan. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Damage to Plaintiffs' Home Caused By Unmoored Boats Survives Surface Water Exclusion

    April 06, 2016 —
    The magistrate's recommended decision found that damage to plaintiffs' home caused by boats that became loose during Hurricane Sandy was not barred as "water borne material" under the surface water exclusion. Spindler v. Great N. Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16532 (E.D. N. Y. Feb. 2, 2016). Plaintiffs' home abutted the East Bay. The property had an exterior deck and a long dock that floated on the bay. Hurricane Sandy damaged plaintiffs' home and dock. A neighbor witnessed two boats, driven by the storm, repeatedly strike plaintiffs' dock, house, and deck. There was no dispute that water infiltrated plaintiffs' yard prior to the entry of the boats. Plaintiffs spent $286,280 to repair damaged items from the storm. 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

    Alexander Moore Promoted to Managing Partner of Kahana Feld’s Oakland Office

    May 08, 2023 —
    Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that Alexander R. Moore, Esq., has been promoted to Managing Partner of our Oakland office. Mr. Moore has been at Kahana Feld since 2021 and is a member of the construction defect and general liability practice groups. Mr. Moore has over 23 years of experience representing individual and commercial clients in complex disputes arising out of construction contracts, construction defect allegations, premises liability matters, landlord-tenant disputes, and contractual disputes arising out of various business relationships involving financial services companies, technology companies, telecommunications companies, real estate brokerages, non-profits, and a range of small businesses. When not focused on litigation, Mr. Moore enjoys consulting on transactional matters including the development of construction and business contracts. He has extensive experience evaluating rights and obligations under construction contracts and related insurance programs. He also assists clients in the implementation of pre-litigation risk management strategies. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alexander R. Moore, Kahana Feld
    Mr. Moore may be contacted at amoore@kahanafeld.com

    White and Williams Defeats Policyholder’s Attempt to Invalidate Asbestos Exclusions

    January 28, 2014 —
    White and Williams attorneys scored a significant victory for the insurance industry on January 15, 2014, when a federal jury of four men and four women rejected a policyholder’s novel efforts to invalidate asbestos exclusions contained in insurance policies issued between February 1, 1979 and August 1, 1985. In General Refractories Co. v. First State Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 04-CV-3509 (E.D. Pa.), General Refractories Company contended that asbestos exclusions in insurance policies issued by various insurance companies in the late 1970s and 1980s had not been submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance for approval prior to use and, therefore, were unenforceable. Holding a failure to obtain approval, by itself, would not be sufficient to render the exclusions unenforceable, the Honorable Edmund Ludwig sent the matter to trial to determine whether the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner implemented a policy that was uniformly executed by the Insurance Department to disapprove all asbestos exclusions between February 1, 1979 and August 1, 1985, such that the exclusions violated a “dominant public policy.”

    Reprinted courtesy of Gregory LoCasale, White and Williams LLP

    and Patricia Santelle , White and Williams LLP

    Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com and Mr. LoCasale may be contacted at locasaleg@whiteandwilliams.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    An Insurance Policy Isn’t Ambiguous Just Because You Want It to Be

    December 20, 2021 —
    When it comes to insurance contracts, there is a rule of law that states, “where interpretation is required by ambiguity in insurance contracts[,] the insured will be favored.” Pride Clean Restoration, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2584a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citation and quotation omitted). Stated another way: ambiguities in insurance contracts will be interpreted in favor of the insured and against the insurer. With this rule of law in mind, insureds oftentimes try to argue ambiguity even when there is not one. This was the situation in Pride Clean Construction. In this case, the property insurance policy contained a mold exclusion that stated the policy did NOT insure for “a. loss caused by mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism of any type, nature, or description including but not limited to any substance whose presence poses an actual or potential threat to human health; or b. the cost or expense of monitoring, testing, removal, encapsulation, abatement, treatment or handling of mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism as referred to in a) above.” Not only did the policy not insure for loss caused by mold, it went further to state it was NOT insuring for any mold testing or abatement. 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

    As of July 1, 2024, California Will Require Most Employers to Have a Written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and Training. Is Your Company Compliant?

    June 17, 2024 —
    The California legislature passed Senate Bill 553 (SB 553) in 2023. This bill requires most California employers to implement a written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and to train employees on the WVPP. At Newmeyer Dillion, we are dedicated to helping you navigate these requirements and maintain a safe, compliant work environment. Act Now: Two Weeks to Comply With SB 553's July 1st compliance deadline, employers have just two weeks to develop and implement a compliant Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP). The clock is ticking, and it is imperative to act swiftly to ensure compliance and protect your employees. What is SB 553? SB 553 is a legislative measure aimed at enhancing workplace safety by mandating specific actions from employers to prevent workplace violence. This bill recognizes the growing concern around workplace violence incidents and the need for proactive measures to maintain a safe workplace. The key components of SB 553 include:
    1. Establishment of a Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP): Employers are required to develop and implement a comprehensive written WVPP tailored to their specific workplace environment and risks.
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason L. Morris, Newmeyer Dillion and Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Morris may be contacted at jason.morris@ndlf.com Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of