BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco 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


    Reasons to Be Skeptical About a Millennial Homebuying Boom in 2016

    Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Damages in Excess of Policy Limits Do Not Trigger Right to Independent Counsel

    Wall Street’s Favorite Suburban Housing Bet Is Getting Crowded

    Waiving Workers’ Compensation Immunity for Indemnity: Demystifying a Common and Scary-Looking Contract Term

    Insurers' Motion to Determine Lack of Occurrence Fails

    Trumark Homes Hired James Furey as VP of Land Acquisition

    A Downside of Associational Standing - HOA's Claims Against Subcontractors Barred by Statute of Limitations

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Business Interruption Claim Denied

    Boston Team Obtains Complete Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in Professional Liability Matter

    Atlantic City Faces Downward Spiral With Revel’s Demise

    Duty to Defend Sorted Between Two Insurers Based Upon Lease and Policies

    Independent Contractor v. Employee. The “ABC Test” Does Not Include a Threshold Hiring Entity Test

    Time to Repair Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws?

    Being deposed—not just for dictators! Depositions in the construction lawsuit (Law & Order: Hard Hat files Part 5)

    Insurer Springs a Leak in Its Pursuit of Subrogation

    Vertical vs. Horizontal Exhaustion – California Supreme Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Policyholders

    #4 CDJ Topic: Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc.

    Equitable Subrogation Part Deux: Mechanic’s Lien vs. Later Bank Deed of Trust

    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    Look to West Africa for the Future of Green Architecture

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Awarded Sacramento Business Journal’s Best of the Bar

    No Duty To Defend Additional Insured When Bodily Injury Not Caused by Insured

    Difference Between a Novation And A Modification to a Contract

    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

    Christopher Leise Recognized by US News – Best Lawyers 2022 "Lawyer of the Year"

    Eliminating Waste in Construction – An Interview with Turner Burton

    Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

    Construction Defect Settlement in Seattle

    Zoning Hearing Notice Addressed by Georgia Appeals Court

    Steel Component Plant Linked to West Virginia Governor Signs $1M Pollution Pact

    Deck Police - The New Mandate for HOA's Takes Safety to the Next Level

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2021 Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    Liquidated Damages Clause Not Enforced

    The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on Construction Businesses

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dispose of Hail Damage Claim Fails

    Flying Solo: How it Helps My Construction Clients

    Ethical Limits on Preparing a Witness for Deposition or Trial

    One-Upmanship by Contractors In Prevailing Wage Decision Leads to a Bad Result for All . . . Perhaps

    Colorado “occurrence”

    Appraisal May Include Cause of Loss Issues

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    Colorado Court of Appeals holds that insurance companies owe duty of prompt and effective communication to claimants and repair subcontractors

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

    OSHA Set to Tag More Firms as Severe Violators Under New Criteria

    President Trump Repeals Contractor “Blacklisting” Rule

    Construction Defect Litigation in Nevada Called "Out of Control"

    VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

    Insurance Client Alert: Denial of Summary Judgment Does Not Automatically Establish Duty to Defend

    How Construction Contracts are Made. Hint: It’s a Bit Like Making Sausage
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Brief Discussion of Enforceability of Anti-Indemnity Statutes in California

    September 10, 2014 —
    California Civil Code Section 2782 has been amended numerous times over the last several years. Essentially, Anti-indemnity statutes may not be fully effective for contracts entered into before January 1, 2009. Some developers and general contractors attempted to comply with the new law, and changed the indemnity provisions of their contracts post January 1, 2006. The time bracket, or zone of danger if you will, is between 1/1/06 and 1/1/09—during those three years California Civil Code §2782 was amended several times. After 1/1/09 Type I indemnity is gone in a residential construction context. The 2005 amendment to Civil Code §2782 rendered residential construction contracts entered into after 1/1/06 containing a Type I indemnity provision in favor of builders unenforceable; The 2007 amendment added contractors not affiliated with the builder to the list of contracting parties who could not take advantage of a Type I indemnity provision; However, the 2008 amendment changed the effective date to 1/1/09, dropped any mention of 2006, and added GCs, other subs, their agents and servants, etc., to the list of possible contracting parties who could not take advantage of a Type I indemnity provision[.] Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    North Carolina Federal Court Holds “Hazardous Materials” Exclusion Does Not Bar Duty to Defend Under CGL Policy for Bodily Injury Claims Arising Out of Direct Exposure to PFAs

    December 07, 2020 —
    On October 19, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina held that a “hazardous materials” exclusion contained in a CGL policy did not preclude a duty to defend the insured against claims alleging bodily injury resulting from direct exposure to perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which are man-made chemicals within the group of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs).[1] In Colony Insurance Company v. Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, the insured was named a defendant in hundreds of underlying suits relating to its manufacture of fire equipment containing aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a fire suppressant.[2] The underlying plaintiffs alleged that: (a) the AFFF contained PFOS and PFOA; (b) PFOA and PFOS are highly carcinogenic; and (c) exposure to AFFF contained in the defendants’ products caused bodily injury or property damage. Around a third of the underlying complaints alleged harm from both direct exposure to the foam and exposure through the environment. Representative language from those complaints was: “[d]uring [underlying plaintiff’s] employment as a firefighter and firefighter instructor, he was significantly exposed to elevated levels of PFOS and PFOA in their concentrated form as a result of regular contact with [d]efendant’s AFFF products and through PFOS and PFOA having contaminated the FireCollege well system.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

    Appraisal Appropriate Despite Pending Coverage Issues

    August 16, 2021 —
    The court granted the insured's motion for partial summary judgment, allowing an appraisal to go forward even with outstanding coverage issues in dispute. DC Plastic Products Corp. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2021 U,.S. Dist. LEXIS 95908 (D. N.J. May 19, 2021). DC Plastic's property was damaged by Superstorm Sandy in October 2012. Claims submitted to Westchester resulted in a payment of $951,102.89 to DC Plastic. The parties disagreed on whether further payments were due. In 2017, DC Plastic sued Westchester for additional payments. DC Plastic moved to compel an appraisal for its claims, requesting that the court appoint an umpire for the appraisal process. Westchester cross-moved to dismiss the case in its entirety. DC Plastic's complaint asked that the court appoint an umpire. The policy stated if the parties could not agree on the amount of loss, each party would select an appraiser, who would then agree upon an umpire. If they could not agree, either party could request the court to appoint the umpire. Therefore, the court was authorised to select the umpire here. 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

    VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

    July 30, 2015 —
    The proper classification of workers by construction companies has been on the radar of the Department of Labor for both the US and Virginia governments for quite a while. While most of the misclassification is innocent and not done to create issues, there have been enough instances of purposeful misclassification of certain workers as independent contractors (thus avoiding workers comp and other payroll expenses) that innocent contractors have born the brunt of these issues through increased payroll costs over those that misclassify (in the form of necessarily higher bids, higher overhead, etc.). As an additional deterrent to improper classification of workers, the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry has issued guidelines for what will occur in Virginia Department of Safety and Health (VOSH) cases. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Got Licensing Questions? CSLB Licensing Workshop November 17th and December 15th

    November 15, 2017 —
    A rare opportunity to hear it straight from the folks who process the applications . . . CSLB Licensing Workshop Offers Helpful Information for Applicants The Contractors State License Board (CSLB) is hosting free workshops for those looking to become a licensed contractor. Current licensees are encouraged to pass this information along to their workers and to those who might be interested in learning more about the application process. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Is It Time to Digitize Safety?

    October 24, 2022 —
    It’s valid to ask whether digitizing a safety program actually makes companies safer. Here is what the data says. All contractors face unique risks that call for custom safety measures. But they also face a handful of similar challenges in this area—including time-consuming paperwork, scattered documentation, as well as a lack of visibility into safety performance. A new report from Foresight Commercial Insurance, “The State of Safety in High Hazard Work Environments,” offers insights into companies’ safety struggles and points to possible solutions. Based on a survey of workers from high-risk industries like construction, the report outlines challenges that are painfully familiar. For example, four out of 10 respondents reported that they have felt pressured to work unsafely in order to complete tasks more quickly or to meet upcoming deadlines. Reprinted courtesy of Peter Grant, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Delaware Strengthens Jurisdictional Defenses for Foreign Corporations Registered to Do Business in Delaware

    April 28, 2016 —
    The days of companies being sued in Delaware based solely upon their compliance with Delaware’s registration statutes appear over. Recently, the Delaware Supreme Court, in Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec[1], held that Delaware Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over a foreign corporation registered to do business in Delaware for claims unrelated to its conduct in Delaware. In Delaware, foreign corporations must register to do business and designate a registered agent in Delaware to accept service of process to sell its products or services.[2] Since 1988, Delaware has construed these registration laws as foreign corporations’ express consent to general jurisdiction.[3] Reprinted courtesy of White & Williams LLP attorneys Randall MacTough, Timothy Martin and Christian Singewald Mr. MacTough may be contacted at mactoughr@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at martint@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Tarriffs, a Pandemic and War: Construction Contracts Must Withstand the Unforeseeable

    May 16, 2022 —
    Since the tariffs on steel and the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the construction industry has been reeling from the impact of material shortages and price increases, labor shortages, breakdowns in the supply chain and the inflationary effect of these issues. Unfortunately, the war in Ukraine has only exacerbated the situation. International conflicts can constrain supply, resulting in delays and price increases for contractors, subcontractors and suppliers. The disruption caused by the war is expected to be particularly acute due to the role that Russia and Ukraine play in the world economy and the effect of the economic sanctions that have been imposed on Russia by the United States and other countries. Russia controls approximately 10% of the global copper reserves and is estimated to produce about 10% of the world’s nickel supply. It also provides at least 30% of Europe’s oil and natural gas. Ukraine is a significant source of raw materials, such as iron. Thus, the war will cause significant shortages and price increases to the global construction industry. There are already reports of delays and cost increases for commodities such as nickel, aluminum, copper and—most importantly—steel, which have resulted in impacts to construction costs and schedules. Suppliers are especially sensitive to the volatile markets caused by these conditions. Some are insisting on automatic price increases in their purchase orders. All of this, not to mention the anticipation of what may come next, points to the necessity for a new paradigm to achieve a successful project. It is more important today than ever that owners, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers reasonably address the economic and time impacts of these unforeseeable events in preparing contracts for future work and in administering existing contracts. Otherwise, the risk of a default on more than one level may put projects in jeopardy, to no one’s benefit. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of