BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction defect 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


    Safeguarding the U.S. Construction Industry from Unfair Competition Abroad

    The Secret to Success Is Doing Things a Little Bit Differently

    Congratulations to Karen Baytosh and August Hotchkin on Their Recognition as 2021 Nevada Legal Elites!

    Massive Wildfire Near Boulder, Colo., Destroys Nearly 1,000 Homes and Businesses

    Subcontractor Sued for Alleged Defective Work

    Toll Brothers Snags Home Builder of the Year Honors at HLS

    How Contractors Can Prevent Fraud in Their Workforce

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Coverage for Named Insured's Defective Work

    Florida Federal Court to Examine Issues of Alleged Arbitrator Conflicts of Interests in Panama Canal Case

    Woodbridge II and the Nuanced Meaning of “Adverse Use” in Hostile Property Rights Cases in Colorado

    After Breaching Its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Pay Market Rates for Defense Counsel

    Insurer’s Broad Duty to Defend in Oregon, and the Recent Ruling in State of Oregon v. Pacific Indemnity Company

    Construction Defect Reform Bill Passes Colorado Senate

    BWB&O ranks as a 2025 Best Law Firm by Best Lawyers®

    Firm Announces Remediation of Defective Drywall

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold Due to Insurer

    Appraisers’ Failure to Perform Assessment of Property’s Existence or Damage is Reversible Error

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: The Duty to Defend

    Court of Appeals Discusses the Difference Between “Claims-Made” and “Occurrence-Based” Insurance Policies

    Sustainability Is an Ever-Increasing Issue in Development

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (11/16/22) – Backlog Shifts, Green Battery Storage, and Russia-Ukraine Updates

    Insured's Experts Excluded, But Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

    Architect Searches for Lost Identity in a City Ravaged by War

    Toll Brothers to Acquire Shapell for $1.6 Billion

    Napa Quake Seen Costing Up to $4 Billion as Wineries Shut

    Manhattan Vacancies Rise in Epicenter Shift: Real Estate

    Insurance Attorney Gary Barrera Joins Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group

    When Cyber Crooks Steal Payments, Think Insurance Makes Up The Loss? Think Again.

    Smart Home Products go Mainstream as Consumer Demand Increases

    Contractor Wins in Arbitration Only to Lose Before the Superior Court on Section 7031 Claim

    Boston Team Secures Summary Judgment Dismissal on Client’s Behalf in Serious Personal Injury Case

    Miller Act and “Public Work of the Federal Government”

    Yes, Indeedy. Competitive Bidding Not Required for School District Lease-Leasebacks

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Validity of Statutory Employer Defense

    Los Angeles Warehousing Mecca Halts Expansion Just as Needs Soar

    So You Want to Arbitrate? Better Make Sure Your Contract Covers All Bases

    A Quick Checklist for Subcontractors

    No Bad Faith in Insurer's Denial of Collapse Claim

    COVID-19 Response: Essential Business Operations: a High-Stakes Question Under Proliferating “Stay at Home” Orders

    Feds Used Wire to Crack Las Vegas HOA Scam

    Alleged Negligent Misrepresentation on Condition of Home is Not an Occurrence Causing Property Damage

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

    Georgia Supreme Court Determines Damage to "Other Property" Not Necessary for Finding Occurrence

    Massachusetts Federal Court Holds No Coverage for Mold and Water Damage Claim

    Colorado Court of Appeals Decides the Triple Crown Case

    Public Policy Prevails: Homebuilders and Homebuyers Cannot Agree to Disclaim Implied Warranty of Habitability in Arizona

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

    Daiwa House to Invest 150 Billion Yen in U.S. Rental Housing

    North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage,” Allocation and Exhaustion-Related Issues Arising Out of Benzene-Related Claims

    Velazquez Framing, LLC v. Cascadia Homes, Inc. (Take 2) – Pre-lien Notice for Labor Unambiguously Not Required
    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

    Association Insurance Company v. Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC: Federal Court Reaffirms That There Is No Duty to Defend or Indemnify A Builder For Defective Construction Work

    December 20, 2017 —
    In a case that squarely confronts the juxtaposition of an insurer’s duty to defend or indemnify its insured for construction related defects, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado recently granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment on both matters against a construction subrogee, in Ass’n Ins. Co. v. Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC, No. 15-cv-02025-RPM, 2016 WL 9735743, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 10. 2017). Mountainview Construction Services, LLC (“MCS”) served as the general contractor for the construction of a residence on a lot owned by Glen Lot E-8, LLC (“E-8”). MCS took out a Commercial General Liability Policy (“Policy”) with Association Insurance Company (“AIC”) that provided coverage to MCS for the relevant time period for the construction of the residence. E-8 then asserted a series of claims against MCS, based on the allegation that MCS and its subcontractors defectively constructed the home by, among other things, building the residence two feet too high in violation of applicable codes. E-8 also argued that MCS and its subcontractors made significant alterations and/or deviations from the original project specifications without obtaining E-8’s consent or approval from relevant authorities. MCS tendered the claim to AIC for defense and indemnity. In turn, AIC declined coverage on the argument that the Policy precluded any coverage for defective work MCS may have performed on the project, absent damage to person or other property. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Ex-Engineered Products Firm Executive Convicted of Bid Rigging

    March 06, 2022 —
    A federal jury convicted a former executive at an engineered construction products firm Feb. 1 for his role in a bid-rigging scheme that targeted the North Carolina Dept. of Transportation. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Happy New Year from CDJ

    January 04, 2018 —
    The CDJ staff has compiled a “Top 10” list of the articles published in 2017. These articles were the “most read” by our audience last year. These most read stories range from contemplating construction industry conundrums to a surprising increase of new home construction nationwide. As we kick off our first publication of 2018 we are excited to continue to bring you interesting and relevant content. We hope that you will continue to rely on CDJ for an insightful weekly summary of what is happening in the construction defect industry. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fifth Circuit Certifies Eight-Corners Duty to Defend Issue to Texas Supreme Court

    June 21, 2021 —
    In the recent case of Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., No. 19-51012, 2021 WL 955155 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2021), certified question accepted (Mar. 19, 2021), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the Texas Supreme Court the question of whether a court can consider extrinsic evidence when determining an insurer’s duty to defend. The underlying lawsuit stems from a construction contract in which J&B Farms of Texas hired 5D, a construction company, to drill a commercial irrigation well through the Edwards Aquifer. Two years after beginning the project, J&B Farms sued 5D and its President for breach of contract and negligence. J&B Farms alleged that while drilling, 5D “stuck the drilling bit in the bore hole, rendering the well practically useless for its intended/contracted for purpose.” 5D then “failed and refused to plug the well, retrieve the drill bit, and drill a new well.” J&B Farms asserted that 5D drilled the well “with unacceptable deviation” and then “abandon[ed] the well.” 5D notified its insurers, BITCO and Monroe, of the lawsuit and demanded a defense from both. BITCO agreed to provide a defense to 5D, but Monroe refused arguing that the alleged property damage fell outside the relevant policy period, and therefore, it had no duty to defend 5D. BITCO then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a finding that Monroe owed 5D a duty to defend. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

    Second Circuit Brings Clarity To Scope of “Joint Employer” Theory in Discrimination Cases

    May 02, 2022 —
    The “joint employer” doctrine has been used with increasing frequency by the plaintiffs’ bar to broaden the scope of target defendants in discrimination cases beyond those who would be traditionally regarded as the employer. This is true even in the construction industry, which has seen a rise in cases where general contractors (“GC”) or construction managers (“CM”) are being targeted when discrimination is alleged on a construction project, even when the GC or CM is far removed from the underlying events and had no control over the employees in question. Examples of this phenomenon are where a claim of harassment or discrimination originates in the lower tier ranks of subcontractors, or even where there is a claim involving an independent contractor on a project and a discrimination lawsuit ensues. Until now, the Courts in the federal circuit which includes New York City (the Second Circuit) have been left to decipher a patchwork of case law to ascertain the scope and extent of joint employer liability in discrimination cases. In a move that is certainly welcomed by contractors, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Felder v. United States Tennis Association, et al., 19-1094, recently issued a comprehensive decision which provides a helpful summary of what must be pled and proven to broaden liability under the joint employer theory in discrimination cases. Felder provides a roadmap for risk mitigation by contractors looking to limit such claims in the future or to meet them head on when they do arise. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. O’Connor, Peckar & Abramson (ConsensusDocs), Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson (ConsensusDocs) and Lauren R. Davis, Peckar & Abramson (ConsensusDocs) Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 43 White and Williams Lawyers

    September 07, 2020 —
    Thirty-three White and Williams lawyers were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2021. Inclusion in Best Lawyers® is based entirely on peer-review. The methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Best Lawyers® employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of quality legal services. In addition, ten associates were recognized as "Ones to Watch” by Best Lawyers®. This recognition is given to attorneys who are earlier in their careers for outstanding professional excellence in private practice in the United States. We are also pleased to announce two White and Williams partners have been named Best Lawyers® 2021 "Lawyer of the Year" in Philadelphia – Edward F. Beitz, Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants and William J. Taylor - Construction Law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    What Construction Contractors Should Know About the California Government Claims Act

    May 28, 2024 —
    If you work on state or local public works projects in California you should have at least a basic understanding of the Government Claims Act formerly known as the Tort Claims Act (Govt. Code §§ 900 et seq.). In the event of a dispute with a public entity, the Government Claims Act will usually apply, absent contractual provisions providing otherwise (Govt. Code §§930, 930.2) (e.g., in a construction contract), and requires that a “claim” first be presented to a “public entity” before a claimant files a lawsuit against the public entity. Failure to comply with the Government Claims Act can serve as a bar to maintaining a lawsuit against a public entity. What types of claims does the Government Claims Act apply to? The Government Claims Act broadly applies to most claims against state and local public entities. This is not limited to construction projects and includes all claims for “money or damage” arising from death, personal injury, breach of contract, and damage to real and personal property, wrongful death, or breach of contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    To Sea or Not to Sea: Fifth Circuit Applies Maritime Law to Offshore Service Contract, Spares Indemnity Provision from Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act

    March 29, 2017 —
    Faced with the issue of whether maritime or state law should be applied to determine the validity of an indemnity clause in a Master Services Contract (MSC), the Fifth Circuit affirmed that where there is no historical treatment of the contract in question (1), it would consider six factors established in Davis (2). In Doiron, the Apache Corporation and STS (3) entered a broad-form blanket MSC, under which STS agreed to perform flow-back services, a process designed to dislodge solid objects from inside a well, on Apache’s well located off shore of Louisiana. The MSC also contained an indemnification provision, which required STS to defend and indemnify Apache and its company groups against all claims of property injury or bodily injury. During the flow-back operation, Larry Doiron Inc. (LDI), one of the Apache Company groups, supplied a crane barge for use by STS employees. Subsequently, the crane knocked over an STS employee, causing him to suffer severe injuries. LDI then made a formal demand to STS for defense and indemnification. STS rejected the demand and argued that the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act applied to the MSC instead of maritime law. Pursuant to the Act, indemnity clauses in agreements pertaining to wells for oil, gas or water are void as against public policy. But, under maritime law, the enforcement of such provisions is not barred. Therefore, if the MSC was construed under the Act, STS had no duty to defend or indemnify LDI. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of