BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction 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


    Mitigate Construction Risk Through Use of Contingency

    A Race to the Finish on Oroville Dam Spillway Fix

    Washington Trial Court Narrows Definition of First Party Claimant, Clarifies Available Causes of Action in Commercial Property Loss Context

    Philadelphia Voters to Consider Best Value Bid Procurment

    Hawaii Supreme Court Construes Designated Premises Endorsement In Insured's Favor

    Hoboken Mayor Admits Defeat as Voters Reject $241 Million School

    A Court-Side Seat: Recent Legal Developments at Supreme and Federal Appeals Courts

    New-Home Sales in U.S. Unexpectedly Fall to Four-Month Low

    Getting U.S to Zero Carbon Will Take a $2.5 Trillion Investment by 2030

    Napa Quake, Flooding Cost $4 Billion in U.S. in August

    Texas Supreme Court Holds that Invoking Appraisal Provision and Paying Appraisal Amount Does Not Insulate an Insurer from Damages Under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act

    DOE Abruptly Cancels $13B Cleanup Award to BWXT-Fluor Team

    Housing Buoyed by 20-Year High for Vet’s Loans: Mortgages

    California Supreme Court Finds Vertical Exhaustion Applies to First-Level Excess Policies

    Builder Pipeline in U.S. at Eight-Year High: Under the Hood

    Michigan Supreme Court Concludes No Statute of Repose on Breach of Contract

    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    Michigan Supreme Court Finds Faulty Subcontractor Work That Damages Insured’s Work Product May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under CGL Policy

    Meet BWB&O’s 2025 Best Lawyers in America!

    Failing to Adopt a Comprehensive Cyber Plan Can Lead to Disaster

    Missouri Construction Company Sues Carpenter Union for Threatening Behavior

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Abandons "Integrated Systems Analysis" for Determining Property Damage

    You Are Your Brother’s Keeper. Direct Contractors in California Now Responsible for Wage Obligations of Subcontractors

    Tall and Sustainable Is Not an Easy Fix

    Indemnitor Owes Indemnity Even Where Indemnitee is Actively Negligent, California Court Holds

    Hospital Inspection to Include Check for Construction Defects

    Alabama Court Upholds Late Notice Disclaimer

    Without Reservations: Fourth Circuit Affirms That Vague Reservation of Rights Waived Insurers’ Coverage Arguments

    A Brief Discussion – Liquidating Agreements

    When Can a General Contractor’s Knowledge be Imputed to a Developer?

    You Need to be a Contractor for Workers’ Compensation Immunity to Apply

    Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

    Court Bars Licensed Contractor From Seeking Compensation for Work Performed by Unlicensed Sub

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Brings Professional Development Series to Their San Antonio Office

    Consequential Damages Can Be Recovered Against Insurer In Breach Of Contract

    In Real Life the Bad Guy Sometimes Gets Away: Adding Judgment Debtors to a Judgment

    No Coverage for Additional Insured

    No Coverage for Repairs Made Before Suit Filed

    Colorado Abandons the “Completed and Accepted Rule” in Favor of the “Foreseeability Rule” in Determining a Contractor’s Duty to a Third Party After Work Has Been Completed

    Duuers: Better Proposals with Less Work

    Workers at Two NFL Stadiums Test Positive for COVID-19, But Construction Continues

    San Francisco Office Secures Defense Verdict in Legal Malpractice Action

    Dot I’s and Cross T’s When It Comes to Construction Licensure Requirements

    Construction Resumes after Defects

    Tennessee Looks to Define Improvements to Real Property

    What is a Civil Dispute?

    PA Superior Court Provides Clarification on Definition of CGL “Occurrence” When Property Damage Is Caused by Faulty Building Conditions

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Bars Coverage for Pool Damage

    Party Loses Additional Insured Argument by Improper Pleading

    Consolidated Case With Covered and Uncovered Allegations Triggers Duty to Defend
    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

    Wisconsin Court Applies the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Negligence Claims for Purely Economic Losses

    August 17, 2020 —
    In Mech. Inc. v. Venture Elec. Contrs., Inc., No. 2018AP2380, 2020 Wisc. App. LEXIS 170, the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District Two, considered whether a party may bring a negligence claim for purely economic damages. In upholding the lower court, the appellate court found that a party is barred by the Economic Loss Doctrine from bringing a negligence claim for purely economic damages. Both parties involved in this action were subcontractors on a building project at the Great Lakes Research Facility for the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. As a result of Venture Electrical Contractors, Inc. (Venture) not paying for requested work, Mechanical, Inc. (Mechanical) sued Venture for $11,961.31. Venture, in turn, countersued in negligence for $1.1 million for costs incurred due to delays and untimely performance. Mechanical sought dismissal of the negligence claim based upon the Economic Loss Doctrine. Finding that the Economic Loss Doctrine applies to purely economic losses, the trial court dismissed Venture’s negligence claim. Venture appealed to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

    20 Years of BHA at West Coast Casualty's CD Seminar: Chronicling BHA's Innovative Exhibits

    May 03, 2018 —

    The Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., (BHA) exhibit has been a fixture at West Coast Casualty's Construction Defect Seminar since the mid-1990's. Through the years, BHA has updated their display, but no matter what year, you could count on the BHA exhibit to provide a not-to-be-missed experience.



    2008-BHA's sleek, rear projection display includes a screen that promotes the firm's capabilities that can be seen throughout the exhibit hall. This would be one of many innovations BHA has brought to the West Coast Casualty seminar.



    2009-With the success of the rear screen projection, BHA adds additional monitors to provide attendees with more information about BHA.



    2010-BHA adds an interpretive professional development exhibit targeted to Building Envelope issues allowing adjusters and other non-construction professionals hands on access to the systems and components at the heart of many related such claims.



    2011-BHA's Swing for Charity challenge is born.



    2012-Always innovating, BHA expands its rear projection and professional development offerings to West Coast attendees.



    2013-BHA showcases additional capabilities with a twenty-four foot, custom, convex, immersive video experience.



    2014-BHA adds an iPhone display to give a hands-on demonstration of their data collection methods.



    2015-BHA's twenty-four foot , custom, convex, immersive video experience was elevated with two additional rear projection screens, reflecting BHA's newest capabilities and services.

    2016-BHA dazzles attendees with their new exhibit comprised of more than 15 integrated, high definition, LCD displays. iPads are stationed on tables to conveniently demonstrate BHA's data collection processes.



    2017-BHA's Swing for Charity Golf Challenge raised $2,225.00 for the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans and $1,900 for Final Salute.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Global MDL for COVID Business Interruption Claims, but Panel Will Consider Separate Consolidated Proceedings for Lloyds, Cincinnati, Hartford, Society

    August 24, 2020 —
    In a widely anticipated ruling, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied two motions to centralize pretrial proceedings in hundreds of federal cases seeking coverage for business interruption losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Panel has ordered expedited briefing on whether four separate consolidated proceedings should be set up for four insurers – Cincinnati, Society, Hartford, and Lloyds – who appear to be named in the largest number of claims. In seeking a single, industry-wide MDL proceeding, some plaintiffs had argued that common questions predominated across the hundreds of pending federal suits: namely, [1] the question of what constituted ‘physical loss or damage’ to property, under the allegedly standardized terms of various insurers’ policies; [2] the question whether various government closure orders should trigger coverage under those policies, and [3] the question whether any exclusions, particularly virus exclusions, applied. Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Konrad R. Krebs, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Krebs may be contacted at krebsk@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    ACS Recognized by Construction Executive Magazine in the Top 50 Construction Law Firms of 2021

    September 06, 2021 —
    ACS is pleased to announce that the firm has been recognized by Construction Executive magazine in The Top 50 Construction Law Firms™ for 2021. Construction Executive ranked ACS number 31 among the top 50 construction practices in the country. ACS is known for our depth of knowledge of the construction industry and experience in construction law. Our lawyers hold leadership positions within state and national industry organizations. Two of our lawyers are past chairs of the Washington State Bar Association’s Construction Law Section and the current chair, five of our lawyers have served as the Chair of the Associated General Contractors of Washington’s Legal Affairs Committee, and the majority of our lawyers are recognized as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars in Super Lawyers Magazine/Thomson Reuters. Since it was first published in 2003, Construction Executive has become the leading trade magazine for news, market developments, and business issues impacting the construction industry. The magazine reaches more than 55,000 commercial, industrial, and institutional contractors and construction-related business owners. Each issue of Construction Executive includes articles designed to help owners and top managers run a more profitable and productive construction business. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC

    Insurers' Communications Through Brokers Not Privileged

    April 20, 2016 —
    The court granted the insured's motion to compel documents withheld for privilege by the insurers. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Amtrack, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27041(E.D. N.Y. Feb. 19, 2016). Plaintiffs were insurers who did business in the London Insurance Market and who issued one or more liability policies issued to Amtrak. Amtrak demanded coverage under the policies for alleged environmental contamination and/or asbestos exposure. Coverage was denied and the insurers filed for a declaratory judgment. 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

    Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

    January 11, 2022 —
    Claims for breach of contract are numerous in the construction law world. Without these claims we construction attorneys would have a hard time keeping the doors open. A 2021 case examined a different sort of claim that could arise (though, “spoiler alert” did not in this case) during the course of a construction project. That type of claim is one for tortious interference with business expectancy. In Clark Nexsen, Inc. et. al v. Rebkee, the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave a great explanation of the law of this type of claim in analyzing the following basic facts: In 2018, Clark Nexsen, Inc. (“Clark”) and MEB General Contractors, Inc. (“MEB”) responded to Henrico County’s (“Henrico”) Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the design and construction of a sport and convocation center (the “Project”). Henrico initially shortlisted Clark and MEB as a “design-build” team for the Project, but later restarted the search, issuing a second RFP. Clark and MEB submitted a second “design-build” proposal, but Henrico selected Rebkee Co. (“Rebkee”) for certain development aspects of the Project. MEB also submitted proposals to Rebkee, and Rebkee selected MEB as the design-builder for the Project. MEB, at Rebkee’s request, solicited proposals from three design firms and ultimately selected Clark as its design partner. From December 2019 to May 2020, Clark and MEB served as the design-build team to assist Rebkee in developing the Project. In connection therewith, Clark developed proprietary designs, technical drawings, and, with MEB, several cost estimates. In February 2020, MEB submitted a $294,334.50 Pay Application to Rebkee for engineering, design, and Project development work. Rebkee never paid MEB. Henrico paid MEB $50,000.00 as partial payment for MEB’s and Clark’s work. MEB then learned that Rebkee was using Clark’s drawings to solicit design and construction proposals from other companies. On July 23, 2020, Rebkee told MEB that Henrico directed it to cancel the design-build arrangement with MEB and Clark and pursue a different planning method. MEB and Clark sued and Rebkee for, among other claims, tortious interference with a business expectancy. Rebkee moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim. 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

    Four Dead After Crane Collapses at Google’s Seattle Campus

    July 29, 2019 —
    Seattle (AP) -- Four people died and three were injured when a construction crane on the new Google Seattle campus collapsed Saturday, pinning six cars underneath. One female and three males were dead by the time firefighters got to the scene, Fire Chief Harold Scoggins said. Two of the dead were ironworkers, not crane operators, as had been previously stated, and the two others were people who had been in cars, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan said Saturday night. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    Construction Bidding for Success

    May 22, 2023 —
    When construction companies develop a history of successful projects, they often consider bidding on larger projects. However, larger projects can carry greater risks. If your company has successfully completed numerous $10 million projects and is considering a bid on a $100 million project, there are several factors to consider before submitting a proposal. That is because bidding on the wrong project could potentially put you out of business. “When a contractor bids a larger project, there is a greater financial risk,” says Tim Holicky, a senior executive underwriter at The Hartford. There are more subcontractors to manage and additional materials to purchase, which all leads to greater financial risk. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights