BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnesses
    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


    New York Court Holds Insurer Can Recover Before Insured Is Made Whole

    Transition Study a Condo Board’s First Defense against Construction Defects

    Court Adopts Magistrate's Recommendation to Deny Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

    Court Says KBR Construction Costs in Iraq were Unreasonable

    Engineer and CNA Dispute Claim Over Dual 2014 Bridge Failures

    California Appellate Court Rules That Mistakenly Grading the Wrong Land Is Not an Accident

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

    Quick Note: Insurer’s Denial of Coverage Waives Right to Enforce Post-Loss Policy Conditions

    Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage

    Construction Law- Where Pragmatism and Law Collide

    U.S. District Court for Hawaii Again Determines Construction Defect Claims Do Not Arise From An Occurrence

    Do Not Pass Go! Duty to Defend in a Professional Services Agreement (law note)

    Indemnity Provision Prevails Over "Other Insurance" Clause

    When is an Indemnification Provision Unenforceable?

    Application of Set-Off When Determining Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    Construction Law Alert: Builder’s Alternative Pre-litigation Procedures Upheld Over Strong Opposition

    Hong Kong Popping Housing Bubbles London Can’t Handle

    Apartments pushed up US homebuilding in September

    Making the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive, Part 2

    Important Information Regarding Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Rights.

    Insurer Prohibited from Bringing Separate Contribution Action in Subrogation to Rights of Suspended Insured

    Surety Bond Now a Valid Performance Guarantee for NC Developers (guest post)

    Reporting Requirements for Architects under California Business and Professions Code Section 5588

    US Secretary of Labor Withdraws Guidance Regarding Independent Contractors

    The Future of Construction Defects in Utah Unclear

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

    New Safety Requirements added for Keystone Pipeline

    MGM Seeks to Demolish Harmon Towers

    While Starts Fall, Builder Confidence and Permits are on the Rise

    Insureds Survive Summary Judgment on Coverage for Hurricane Loss

    Is It Time to Digitize Safety?

    Robots on Construction Sites Are Raising Legal Questions

    What is a Civil Dispute?

    11th Circuit Affirms Bad Faith Judgement Against Primary Insurer

    Indirect Benefit Does Not Support Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Prime Contractor

    Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    New Jersey Construction Worker Sentenced for Home Repair Fraud

    Dave McLain included in the 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America

    Contractor’s Claim for Interest on Subcontractor’s Defective Work Claim Gains Mixed Results

    Federal Public Works Construction Collection Remedies: The Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Construction Defect Risks Shifted to Insurers in 2013

    Addenda to Construction Contracts Can Be an Issue

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

    Berkeley Researchers Look to Ancient Rome for Greener Concrete

    Government’s Termination of Contractor for Default for Failure-To-Make Progress

    4 Breakthrough Panama Canal Engineering Innovations

    High Attendance Predicted for West Coast Casualty Seminar

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

    Insurance for Large Construction Equipment Such as a Crane

    Federal Court Dismisses Coverage Action in Favor of Pending State Proceeding
    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. Drawing 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

    Is an Initial Decision Maker, Project Neutral, or Dispute Resolution Board Right for You?

    July 14, 2016 —
    Recently, I participated in a roundtable hosted by JAMS with experienced South Florida construction lawyers and retired circuit court judges to discuss the pros and cons of utilizing an initial decision maker (“IDM” and also referred to as a project neutral) or a dispute resolution board (“DRB”) to resolve disputes on construction projects. The IDM and DRB are designed to resolve disputes, specifically claims (whether for time, money, or both), during construction to keep the project progressing forward without being bogged down by the inevitable claim. There are numerous avenues to resolve disputes without resorting to filing a lawsuit or a demand for arbitration. The thought is that dispute resolution will be facilitated by techniques designed to assist the parties with the resolution of claims during construction. While direct discussions between the parties, meetings with the executives for business decision purposes, mediations, etc., are certainly helpful, sometimes these avenues are simply not enough to truly resolve a complex claim on a construction project that occurs during construction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Plehat Brings Natural Environments into Design Tools

    May 01, 2019 —
    Natural elements are an essential part of the built environment. However, BIM tools offer almost no support to landscape architecture. Plehat is introducing a new solution that helps architects and decision-makers to understand the dynamics of nature and make smart design choices. Plehat used photogrammetric 3D models of Uunisaari islands, to the south of Helsinki. The experimenters modeled the buildings and the plants on the island and used game engine software to create a virtual reality (VR) experience. They called the app the “Landscape Time Machine”. The technology solution they developed paved the way for new software that the company will launch later this year. In 2018, Plehat, a landscape design startup, received funding from the Finnish national KIRA-digi digitalization project to carry out a test. The experimentation demonstrated how seasonal changes and weather conditions affect plants, and how the environment can be visualized and analyzed virtually. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    California Bullet Train Clears Federal Environmental Approval

    June 30, 2014 —
    The U.S. Federal Railroad Administration has approved an environmental review needed to begin building a portion of a $68 billion California high-speed rail line that has been mired in lawsuits. The agency, part of the Transportation Department, said in a release that it cleared a 114-mile (183-kilometer) stretch of the project in the Central Valley. The California High-Speed Rail Authority has been blocked from selling bonds to begin construction of the first U.S. bullet train until a court decides whether details of the financing were adequately disclosed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael B. Marois, Bloomberg
    Mr. Marois may be contacted at mmarois@bloomberg.net

    "Abrupt Falling Down of Building or Part of Building" as Definition of Collapse Found Ambiguous

    October 23, 2018 —
    The federal district court predicted the California Supreme Court would find the definition of collapse, calling for the abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or part of a building, to be ambiguous. Hoban v. Nova Cas. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139116 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2018). The insureds' bowling center had two roof trusses that helped support the roof. The truss failures caused the building ceiling, overhead monitors, and disco ball to drop approximately six to ten inches, and also caused ceiling tiles and a layer of insulation to fall from the ceiling. A general contractor, named Tom Powers, and the county building inspector inspected the damage. The building inspector immediately ordered the business closed until necessary repairs could be completed. Powers was hired to shore up the roof support system to prevent a complete collapse. Thereafter, the insureds were able to re-open the bowling alley. 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

    Fire Fears After Grenfell Disaster Set Back Wood Building in UK

    May 29, 2023 —
    This article is part of the Bloomberg Green series Timber Town, which looks at the global rise of timber as a low-carbon building material. To get fire department approval for their six-story London office project made of strong engineered wood known as mass timber, Theo Michell and Richard Walker had to build a full-scale section of it in the UK, ship it to Poland and attempt to set it on fire. The mockup was set alight “with enough material that replicates the fire load that you get from furniture and carpets and desks, and all the rest of it, and you see how that structure performs,” says Michell. “It was cool,” adds Walker. “It looked amazing.” Their building, called Paradise, passed the fire test and is under construction, though not without a significant drag on their budget and time. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Olivia Rudgard, Bloomberg

    Ninth Circuit Construes Known Loss Provision

    August 19, 2015 —
    The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's award of summary judgment to the insurer after analyzing the known loss provision in the insured subcontractor's policy. Kaady v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10754 (9th Cir. June 25, 2015). The insured was awarded a subcontract to install manufactured stone at the residential project. The stone was affixed to the wall sheathing. The insured also wrapped deck posts with manufactured stone and installed masonry caps on the toe of the stone that was wrapped around the deck posts. After construction was completed, the insured was called back to the project to inspect cracks in the manufactured stone and masonry caps he installed. The insured told the general contractor that the cracks were likely due to settling. Three months after inspecting the cracks, the insured purchased a CGL policy from Mid-Continent. 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

    Insurer's Denial of Coverage to Additional Insured Constitutes Bad Faith

    May 21, 2014 —
    The insurer's unreasonable denial of a defense and indemnity to a lessor/additional insured was found to be in bad faith. Seaway Props. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55998 (W.D. Wash. April 22, 2014). Seaway leased restaurant space to Ciao Bella Food, LLC. In January 10, 2010, the underlying plaintiff was on her way to the restaurant when she attempted to step down from a concrete platform between the building parking lot and the entrance to the restaurant. Seaway's lease gave Ciao Bella the right to use the common areas, including the parking lot, but did not grant Ciao Bella exclusive control over the common areas. The plaintiff suffered injuries and claimed both Ciao Bella and Seaway were liable. Seaway's lease required Ciao Bella to maintain a CGL policy and to name Seaway as an additional insured. Ciao Bella did so by securing a policy with Fireman's Fund. Fireman's Fund had notice of the plaintiff's claim by November 2010. Seaway demanded in March 2012 that Fireman's Fund indemnify and defend it. In September 2012, two years after it first learned of the plaintiff's injury, Fireman's Fund denied coverage, asserting that Seaway was not an insured under the policy. 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

    A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Endangered Species and Deliberative Process Privilege

    April 19, 2021 —
    The federal courts have issued some significant environmental law rulings in the past few days. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, Inc. On March 4, 2021, the court held that the deliberative process privilege of the Freedom of Information Act shields from disclosure in-house draft governmental biological opinions that are both “predecisional” and deliberative. According to the court, these opinions, opining on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) effects on aquatic species of a proposed federal rule affecting cooling water intake structures—which was promulgated in 2019—are exempt from disclosure because they do not reflect a “final” agency opinion. Indeed, these ESA-required opinions reflect a preliminary view, and the Services did not treat them as being the final or last word on the project’s desirability. The Sierra Club, invoking the FOIA, sought many records generated by the rulemaking proceeding, and received thousands of pages. However, the Service declined to release the draft biological opinions that were created in connection with the ESA consultative process. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com