BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expert
    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


    Force Majeure and COVID-19 in Construction Contracts – What You Need to Know

    Coverage Article - To Settle or Not To Settle?

    Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: LESLIE KING O'NEAL

    Determining Duty to Defend in Wisconsin Does Not Include Extrinsic Evidence

    Significant Issues Test Applies to Fraudulent Claims to Determine Attorney’s Fees

    Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Negligence Claim Against Flood Insurer

    Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update

    Gene Witkin Celebrates First Anniversary as Member of Ross Hart’s Mediation Team

    Insureds Survive Motion to Dismiss Civil Authority Claim

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    Tenants Underwater: Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Privity Requirement for Property Damage Claims Against Contractors

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to Best Lawyers in America© Orange County and as Attorneys of the Year 2018

    Firm Seeks to Squash Subpoena in Coverage CD Case

    There’s Still No Amazon for Housing, But Fintech’s Working on It

    New York Converting Unlikely Buildings into Condominiums

    Undercover Sting Nabs Eleven Illegal Contractors in California

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team on Obtaining a Defense Verdict in Favor of their Subcontractor Client!

    Florida Law: Interplay of SIR and the Made-Whole Doctrine

    Cutting the Salt Out: Tips for Avoiding Union Salting Charges

    Video: Contractors’ Update on New Regulations Governing Commercial Use of Drones

    Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case

    Property Owner Entitled to Rely on Zoning Administrator Advice

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    California’s One-Action Rule May Apply to Federal Lenders

    2017 Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure

    A Guide to California’s Changes to Civil Discovery Rules

    Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses Waiver and Estoppel in Context of Suit Limitation Provision in Property Policy

    KB Homes Sues Condo Buyers over Alleged Cybersquatting and Hacking

    Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

    Environmental Suit Against Lockheed Martin Dismissed

    Contract Void Ab Initio: Key Insights into the KBR vs. Corps of Engineers Affirmative Defense

    Cybersecurity "Flash" Warning for Construction and Manufacturing Businesses

    What Types of “Damages Claims” Survive a Trustee’s Sale?

    Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm

    Muir named Brown and Caldwell Eastern leader

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

    Absence of Property Damage During Policy Period Equates to No Coverage

    County Elects Not to Sue Over Construction Defect Claims

    SEC Climate Change Disclosure Letter Foreshadows Anticipated Regulatory Changes

    Protecting Your Business From Liability Claims Stemming From COVID-19 Exposure

    What You Need to Know About CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Regulations

    How I Prevailed on a Remote Jury Trial

    The Contributors to This Blog Are Pleased to Announce That….

    Ohio Condo Owners Sue Builder, Alleging Construction Defects

    Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage

    Home Prices Up, Inventory Down

    Think Before you Execute that Release – the Language in the Release Matters!

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds that Subrogation Waiver Does Not Violate Statute Prohibiting Limitation on Tort Liability in Construction Contracts

    ConsensusDOCS Updates its Forms

    Home Buyers Lose as U.S. Bond Rally Skips Mortgage Rates
    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

    Tightest Credit Market in 16 Years Rejects Bernanke’s Bid

    October 08, 2014 —
    James Bregenzer, a 31-year-old marketing strategist in Chicago, was rejected for a mortgage in May after successfully financing two previous home purchases. The hitch this time: his monthly payment would have been $100 more than the lender was willing to approve. Bregenzer is in good company. Standards in the U.S. are so high and inflexible that former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, now a Brookings Institute fellow-in-residence with a net worth of at least $1.1 million, said at a conference last week that he couldn’t refinance his house in Washington. Even some doctors struggle to get home loans if they’re self-employed. “We asked if we could go over by $100 and were told that’s just not going to work,” said Bregenzer, who bought his first home before getting married in 2008. “The process of buying a home used to be stupid easy. Now, my wife and I were buying a home with two salaries, we make a heck of a lot more than I used to, and I have to go into great and terrible detail to show documentation.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
    Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

    Georgia Federal Court Holds That Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage Under Liability Policy for Claims Arising From Discharge of PFAS Into Waterways

    December 18, 2022 —
    On December 5, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Georgia held that a total pollution exclusion (TPE) in a CGL policy relieved the insurer of any obligation to defend or indemnify a recycling company in a putative class action alleging PFAS contamination of Georgia waterways. See Grange Ins. Co. v. Cycle-Tex Inc., et al., Order, Civ. A. No. 4:21-cv-00147-AT (N.D. Ga. Dec. 5, 2022). The decision adds to a slowly-developing body of case law addressing coverage issues arising out of PFAS-related claims. In Grange, the insured, Cycle-Tex, Inc., was the operator of a thermoplastics recycling facility in Dalton, Georgia. Cycle-Tex and other defendants – which included chemical suppliers, carpet manufacturers, intermediaries, the City of Dalton and the Dalton-Whitfield Solid Waste Authority – were named in a putative class action complaint alleging that residents of Dalton had been injured as a result of the defendants’ discharge of PFAS into local waterways. The complaint sought damages for: (1) alleged harm to the residents’ health by virtue of ingesting contaminated water; (2) alleged property damage resulting from the contamination of the public water supply; and (3) the payment of surcharges and heightened water rates as a result of the alleged contamination. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Paul Briganti, White and Williams
    Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

    Will European Insurers’ Positive Response to COVID-19 Claims Influence US Insurers?

    August 10, 2020 —
    Last month we wrote a piece concerning AXA’s agreement to pay COVID-19 related business interruption claims by a group of restaurants in France after a court ruled that the restaurants’ revenue losses resulting from COVID-19 and related government orders were covered under its insurance policies. AXA reportedly has already agreed to pay over 200 COVID-19 related claims. Another European insurer recently made headlines for similar reasons. Despite initially denying liability, Swiss insurance company, Helvetia Insurance, announced that most of its policyholders in the hospitality industry have accepted settlements following coverage disputes for COVID-19 related business interruption losses. The settlements reportedly included policyholders from Switzerland, Austria, and Germany. The positive response from the European insurers appears to have influenced the insurance industry across the continent. For instance, in the U.K., the Financial Conduct Authority announced that it is taking certain insurers to court to seek clarity as to coverage for COVID-19 related losses. In Germany, the government and a group of insurers reached an agreement whereby the government will pay for 70% of business interruption losses for policyholders in the hospitality industry, and the insurers will pay for half of the business interruption losses not covered by the government. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Premises Liability: Everything You Need to Know

    September 09, 2019 —
    Premises liability is a relatively simple concept: landowners, lessors, and occupiers of land must keep their property safe and avoid causing harm to others. Premises liability lawsuits can arise from an array of circumstances including a slip and fall by an individual, a construction site accident, or an accident at occurs on a residential or commercial property. Under California law, everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property. California Civil Code 1714 (a). When an individual is injured on a property, the person harmed generally brings a lawsuit based upon a theory of negligence. Under this theory, an injured Plaintiff must prove the following:
    1. The defendant owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property;
    2. The defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property;
    3. The plaintiff was harmed; and
    4. The defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.
    California Civil Jury Instructions 1000. When evaluating a negligence claim under the theory of premises liability, there are several key elements for both a Plaintiff and a Defendant to consider. First, the landowner, occupier, or lessor of a premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the use or maintenance of the premises to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968). Essentially, a landowner or occupier is required to take steps to keep individuals on the property free from harm. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Why Clinton and Trump’s Infrastructure Plans Leave Us Wanting More

    September 15, 2016 —
    It’s hard not to pick up your newspaper (or, more likely, your smart phone) and not get caught up reading about Donald Trump’s latest “did he really say that” statement or about the “less than personal” personal email account of Hillary Clinton. But which candidate is better suited to bridge America’s nearly $1.5 trillion infrastructure gap? Clinton the veteran politician? Or Trump the veteran developer? Despite being on opposite sides on nearly every issue from abortion, to taxes, to . . . well, maybe immigration . . . both Clinton and Trump agree that the U.S. needs to invest more in its aging infrastructure. But that’s a little like saying we should take better care of ourselves and exercise more. Of course we should. The question is how. 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

    Good-To-Know Points Regarding (I) Miller Act Payment Bonds And (Ii) Payment Bond Surety Compelling Arbitration

    December 22, 2019 —
    Every now and then I come across an opinion that addresses good-to-know legal issues as a corollary of strategic litigation decisions that are questionable and/or creative. An opinion out of the United States District Court of New Mexico, Rock Roofing, LLC v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, 2019 WL 4418918 (D. New Mexico 2019), is such an opinion. In Rock Roofing, an owner hired a contractor to construct apartments. The contractor furnished a payment bond. The contractor, in the performance of its work, hired a roofing subcontractor. A dispute arose under the subcontract and the roofer recorded a construction lien against the project. The contractor, per New Mexico law, obtained a bond to release the roofer’s construction lien from the project (real property). The roofer then filed a lawsuit in federal court against the payment bond surety claiming it is entitled to: (1) collect on the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond (?!?) and (2) foreclose its construction lien against the lien release bond furnished per New Mexico law. Count I – Miller Act Payment Bond Claiming the payment bond issued by the contractor is a Miller Act payment bond is a head scratcher. This claim was dismissed with prejudice upon the surety’s motion to dismiss. This was an easy call. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Florida Lien Law and Substantial Compliance vs. Strict Compliance

    April 20, 2017 —
    There are literally some (or, perhaps, many!) disputes that will make you say “hmm!” The “hmm” is a euphemism for “what is a party thinking?!?” The case of Trump Endeavor 12 LLC v. Fernich, Inc., 42 Fla. L.Weekly D830a (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) is one of these cases because a party (the owner) is banking its defense on a technical “all-or-nothing” argument pertaining to whether a lienor (a supplier) substantially complied with Florida’s Lien Law because a supplier’s Notice to Owner identified the wrong general contractor. This is a challenging argument because the owner has to prove how they were adversely affected / prejudiced by the lack of substantial compliance, which is not an easy burden. This case concerns the Trump National Doral Miami project. The project consisted of a lodge project and a separate clubhouse project, both of which had different general contractors. On the lodge project, the general contractor hired a painter which, in turn, procured paint from a supplier (the lienor). The supplier visited the project and obtained the Notice of Commencement from the owner so that it could perfect its lien rights. The owner furnished the supplier the Notice of Commencement for the clubhouse project that had a different general contractor. Relying on this Notice of Commencement, the supplier served a Notice to Owner. The Notice to Owner was timely serviced however it identified the wrong contractor – it identified the general contractor for the clubhouse project instead of the lodge project. Although the supplier later learned there was a different general contractor on the lodge project, it did not remedy the issue by serving a Notice to Owner on the correct contractor. Indeed, the contractor for the lodge project learned of the Notice to Owner furnished by the supplier and that the supplier was furnishing paint to the painting subcontractor for purposes of that project. 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

    Meet the Forum's Neutrals: TOM DUNN

    October 21, 2024 —
    Company: Pierce Atwood LLP Office Location: Boston, MA Licensed in: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, California (inactive) Email: rtdunn@pierceatwood.com Website: https://www.pierceatwood.com/people/r-thomas-dunn Law School: McGeorge School of Law (2004 JD) Types of ADR services offered: Arbitration Affiliated ADR organizations: American Arbitration Association Geographic area served: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New England Q: Describe the path you took to becoming an ADR neutral. A: Arbitration and alternative forms to avoid and resolve disputes has interested me since law school. Serving as an arbitrator is rewarding both as a neutral helping people close out disputes, but also as an advocate as it reminds me about how best to communicate with the fact finder. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLP
    Ms. Downs may be contacted at mdowns@lauriebrennan.com