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


    Baltimore Bridge Collapse Occurred After Ship Lost Power Multiple Times

    Workers on Big California Bridge Tackle Oil Wells, Seismic Issues

    US Secretary of Labor Withdraws Guidance Regarding Independent Contractors

    New Change Order Bill Becomes Law: RCW 39.04.360

    Arbitration is Waivable (Even If You Don’t Mean To)

    No Escape: California Court of Appeals Gives a Primary CGL Insurer’s “Other Insurance” Clause Two Thumbs Down

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Builder’s Risk Indeed”

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

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    24/7 Wall Street Reported on Eight Housing Markets at All-Time Highs

    Rescission of Policy for Misrepresentation in Application Reversed

    Negligence Against a Construction Manager Agent

    Another Colorado District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retroactively

    Blog: Congress Strikes a Blow to President Obama’s “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” Executive Order 13673

    Daniel Ferhat Receives Two Awards for Service to the Legal Community

    Buildings Don't Have To Be Bird-Killers

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: J. PAUL ALLEN

    Goldman Veteran Said to Buy Mortgages After Big Short

    Be Proactive, Not Reactive, To Preserve Force Majeure Rights Regarding The Coronavirus

    Neighbor Allowed to Remove Tree Roots on Her Property That Supported Adjoining Landowners’ Two Large Trees With Legal Immunity

    Be Wary of Construction Defects when Joining a Community Association

    Consolidated Case With Covered and Uncovered Allegations Triggers Duty to Defend

    Congratulations to all of our 2023 Attorneys Named as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Court Agrees to Stay Coverage Matter While Underlying State Action is Pending

    Massachusetts Roofer Killed in Nine-story Fall

    Defining Constructive Acceleration

    Seeking the Urban Lifestyle in the Suburbs

    U.K. High Court COVID-19 Victory for Policyholders May Set a Trend in the U.S.

    Construction Halted in Wisconsin Due to Alleged Bid Issues

    Ninth Circuit Rules Supreme Court’s Two-Part Test of Implied Certification under the False Claims Act Mandatory

    McGraw Hill to Sell off Construction-Data Unit

    ABC Safety Report: Construction Companies Can Be Nearly 6 Times Safer Than the Industry Average Through Best Practices

    Reservation of Rights Letter Merely Citing Policy Provisions Inadequate

    The “Right to Repair” Construction Defects in the Rocky Mountain and Plains Region

    English High Court Finds That Business-Interruption Insurance Can Cover COVID-19 Losses

    GRSM Team Wins Summary Judgment in Million-Dollar HOA Dispute

    Florida Condos Bet on Americans Making 50% Down Payments

    Bond Principal Necessary on a Mechanic’s Lien Claim

    New York Appellate Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

    No Coverage for Repairs Made Before Suit Filed

    New Jersey’s Independent Contractor Rule

    No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claims Against Contractor

    The Pitfalls of Oral Agreements in the Construction Industry

    Chapman Glucksman Press Release

    California Assembly Passes Expedited Dam Safety for Silicon Valley Act

    Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Rated as One of the Top 50 in a Survey of Construction Law Firms in the United States

    Senior Living Facility Makes Construction Defect Claims

    SCOTUS, Having Received Views of Solicitor General, Will Decide Whether CWA Regulates Indirect Discharge of Pollutants Into Navigable Water Via Groundwater

    Meet D1's Neutrals Series: KENNETH FLOREY
    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

    Federal Courts Keep Chipping Away at the CDC Eviction Moratorium

    March 22, 2021 —
    In a March 10 decision, a federal court in Cleveland blocked the national eviction moratorium, making it the second court to challenge the emergency measure implemented under President Donald Trump and extended by the Biden administration. The order clears the way for courts and landlords to resume evictions against tenants across much of Ohio. But the landlord groups who brought the suit believe that the decision could have a broader national application, setting the stage for an earlier-than-anticipated resumption of eviction activity before the ban expires on March 31. The judge ruled that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which introduced its ban on evictions in September, lacks the authority to enact such a policy. While the court stopped short of issuing an injunction against the CDC ban, its decision goes further than the Texas court that made a similar call late in February. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kriston Capps, Bloomberg

    Why You Make A Better Wall Than A Window: Why Policyholders Can Rest Assured That Insurers Should Pay Legal Bills for Claims with Potential Coverage

    March 14, 2018 —
    Unfortunately, policyholders, such as manufacturers and contractors, routinely face the unnecessary challenge of how to access all of the insurance coverage which they have purchased. Frequently, the most pressing need is to get the insurance company to pay the legal bills when the policyholders have been sued. The recent Iowa federal district court opinion in Pella Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company should help a policyholder in a dispute to require its insurance company to pay those legal bills sooner rather than later by highlighting that the duty to defend arises from the potential for coverage, and the insurer may not force the policyholder to prove the damage to obtain a defense. In Pella, a window manufacturer purchased several years of insurance coverage from Liberty Mutual. Similar to many companies, Pella had many “layers” of insurance coverage in any given year. These layers collectively function like a tower. The general idea is that each layer provides a certain amount of coverage after the insurance policy below it had paid its money. The Liberty Mutual insurance policies provided excess coverage. After the Pella window manufacturer made and sold its windows, it was sued in numerous lawsuits alleging that its windows were defective and that those defective windows caused a wide variety of damage to the structures in which they were installed. The window manufacturer tendered those lawsuits to its insurance companies in its tower of coverage, asking that the insurance companies pay its legal bills incurred in its defense. As to Liberty Mutual, the window manufacturer argued that the Liberty Mutual insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to reimburse it, if a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage or if there was a mere allegation that a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage. Liberty Mutual opposed, arguing that the date of installation of the windows was insufficient to trigger the policies, and that the manufacturer was required to demonstrate the date that damage actually occurred to trigger a defense. The key issue before the Pella Court in this decision was a simple one: which insurance policies, if any, issued by Liberty Mutual had an obligation to pay the window manufacturer’s legal bills? The answer to that question is critical and financially significant. Getting an insurance company to honor its obligations and start paying the legal bills as soon as possible is very important for a policyholder because of the cost of defending oneself in a lawsuit; often the key reason why an insurance policy is even purchased is to provide the policyholder with the right to call upon the insurance company’s financial resources to defend it should it be sued. In a ruling that will be welcomed by policyholders, the Pella Court held that Liberty Mutual’s multiple insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to pay for the window manufacturer’s defense, if one of two events occurred during the years in which those insurance policies provided coverage: (1) a window was actually installed during a year when the insurance policy provided coverage or (2) the window was alleged to be installed in the year that the insurance policy provided coverage. The Court agreed with the policyholder that once the windows were installed, property damage was alleged and “may potentially have occurred” from that point on, thus the policies on the risk from that point forward. The practical effect of this ruling meant that Liberty Mutual had to reimburse the window manufacturer for the defense fees and costs that it had paid. While Pella was decided under Iowa law, the principles upon which it relied are similar to those applied under California law. Importantly, both California and Iowa law hold that an insurance company must provide a defense in response to a claim that is, or could be, covered by the insurance policy. The mere potential that the claim might be covered is enough for the insurance company to be obligated to pay for policyholder’s legal fees and costs. Establishing that an insurance company must pay legal fees and costs as soon as possible allows a policyholder to save its own money. Why should a policyholder pay legal bills when it purchased an insurance policy as protection to ensure that it did not have to pay those bills? The answer is that a policyholder should not and, under Pella, the policyholder does not have to. Rather, the insurance company must start paying for that defense from a very early date. Pella confirms for policyholders the position that their insurance companies should pay legal bills earlier rather than later. Alan Packer is a partner in the Walnut Creek office for Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing homebuilders, property owners, and business clients on a broad range of legal matters, including risk management, insurance matters, wrap consultation and documentation, efforts to counter solicitation of homeowners, subcontract documentation, as well as complex litigation matters. Alan can be reached at alan.packer@ndlf.com. Graham Mills is a partner in the Walnut Creek offce of Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing clients in the area of complex insurance law with an emphasis on insurance recovery, construction litigation, real estate litigation, and business litigation. He regularly examines and analyzes a wide variety of insurance policies. Graham can be reached at graham.mills@ndlf.com. ABOUT NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review’s AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Implied Warranties for Infrastructure in Florida Construction Defect Claims

    December 30, 2013 —
    The homeowners in the Lakeview development built by Maronda Homes in Orange County, Florida started having water and drainage problems shortly after the homeowners association took control of the community. They fought their case all the way to the Florida Supreme Court, where the question was whether implied warranties of fitness covered the community’s infrastructure. William Martin III, writing on the DestinLog, notes that previous Florida Supreme Court decisions went the other way. In a case involving a seawall, the court held that “unless the seawall was part of or in connection with the construction of a home or in support of a residence.” In the Lakeview case, they determined that the community’s infrastructure was just that: “essential to the habitability of the residence.” The court specifically included roads for ingress and egress, drainage systems to divert flooding, retention ponds to correct water flow damage, and underground pipes which are necessary for living accommodations.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Feds Outline Workforce Rules for $39B in Chip Plant Funding

    April 10, 2023 —
    Semiconductor chip producers must pay their construction workforce prevailing wages and will be “strongly encouraged” to use project labor agreements if they want a piece of the $39 billion available in federal funding to support fabrication plant construction, expansion or modernization projects, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo says. 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

    Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute

    June 02, 2016 —
    In its most recent session, the Georgia General Assembly passed HB 943, which amends Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute. The amendment expands the Anti-Indemnity Statute beyond construction contracts to include contracts for engineering, architectural, and land surveying services (“A/E Contracts”). In a prior post, we discussed Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute, which generally prohibits indemnity clauses in construction contracts that require one party (the “Indemnitor”) to indemnify another party (the “Indemnitee”) if property damage or bodily injury results from the Indemnitee’s sole negligence. The prior post, discussed the Supreme Court of Georgia’s broad interpretation of the Anti-Indemnity Statute. HB 943 adds subpart (c), which states:
    A covenant, promise, agreement, or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement for engineering, architectural, or land surveying services purporting to require that one party to such contract or agreement shall indemnify, hold harmless, insure, or defend the other party to the contract or other named indemnitee, including its, his, or her officers, agents, or employees, against liability or claims for damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, is against public policy and void and unenforceable, except for indemnification for damages, losses, or expenses to the extent caused by or resulting from the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the indemnitor or other persons employed or utilized by the indemnitor in the performance of the contract. This subsection shall not affect any obligation under workers’ compensation or coverage or insurance specifically relating to workers’ compensation, nor shall this subsection apply to any requirement that one party to the contract purchase a project specific insurance policy or project specific policy endorsement.
    (Emphasis added.) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Are You a Construction Lienor?

    November 15, 2017 —
    When it comes to construction lien rights, not everyone that touches the project is a proper lienor. Forget about timely serving a Notice to Owner or recording a claim of lien, if you are not a proper lienor, it does not matter if you properly perfected your lien rights. If you are not a proper lienor, you have NO lien rights under the law! Florida Statue s. 713.01(18) defines a lienor as follows: (18) “Lienor” means a person who is: (a) A contractor; (b) A subcontractor; (c) A sub-subcontractor; (d) A laborer; (e) A materialman who contracts with the owner, a contractor, a subcontractor, or a sub-subcontractor; or (f) A professional lienor under s. 713.03; and who has a lien or prospective lien upon real property under this part, and includes his or her successor in interest. No other person may have a lien under this part. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

    Michigan Court of Appeals Remands Construction Defect Case

    February 14, 2022 —
    After its prior decision holding there was no coverage for faulty workmanship was remanded by the Michigan Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court. Skanska United States Bldg. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contrs., 2021 Mich. App. LEXIS 7336 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2021). The post summarizing the Supreme Court decision is here. Skanska USA Building was the construction manager on a renovation project at a medical center. Skanska subcontracted the heating and cooling portion of the project to defendant M.A.P. MAP held a CGL policy from Amerisure. Skanska and the medical center were named as additional insureds. MAP installed a steam boiler and related piping for the heating system. When completed, the heating system did not function properly. MAP installed some of the expansion joints backwards, causing damage to concrete, steel, and the heating system. 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

    Meet Orange County Bar Associations 2024 Leaders

    April 08, 2024 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to share that CEO/Founding Partner Nicole Whyte and Orange County Bar Association’s (“OCBA”) leaders are featured in the Orange County Lawyer (“OCL”) publication, Who’s Who In The OCBA, that was released earlier this month. To see this year’s 2024 board of directors, section leaders, committee chairs, task forces, and charitable fund board, please click here. Nicole Whyte provides individualized counseling and representation in all areas of Family Law. She has served on various OCBA legal committees and boards for over two decades and was elected to OCBA’s Board of Directors in 2024. She is committed to supporting the needs of the OCBA and its thriving and diverse OC legal community. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP