BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural 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


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

    Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions – Changes and Claims

    Is the Construction Industry Actually a Technology Hotbed?

    Privity Problems Continue for Additional Insureds in the Second Circuit

    New Home Sales Slip, but Still Strong

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

    Eleven Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2023 U.S. News Best Lawyers in Multiple Practice Areas

    CC&Rs Not the Place for Arbitration Agreement, Court Rules

    Is Your Business Insured for the Coronavirus?

    Endorsements Preclude Coverage for Alleged Faulty Workmanship

    Formal Opinion No. 2020-203: How A Lawyer Is to Handle Access to Client Confidential Information and Anticipation of Potential Security Issues

    Cooperation and Collaboration With Government May Be on the Horizon

    New Homes in Palo Alto to Be Electric-Car Ready

    So, You Have a Judgment Against a California Contractor or Subcontractor. What Next? How Can I Enforce Payment?

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Wrap Music to an Insurer’s Ears?”

    Why Biden’s Infrastructure Plan Is a Green Jobs Plan

    DOI Aims to Modernize its “Inefficient and Inflexible” Type A Natural Resource Damages Assessment Regulations

    Wildfire Risk Harms California Home Values, San Francisco Fed Study Finds

    Substitutions On a Construction Project — A Specification Writer Responds

    New York Court Holds Insurer Can Rely on Exclusions After Incorrectly Denying Defense

    Billionaire Row Condo Board Sues Developers Over 1,500 Building Defects

    Luxury Home Sales are on the Rise

    Motion for Reconsideration Challenging Appraisal Determining Cause of Loss Denied

    Oracle Sues Procore, Claims Theft of Trade Secrets for ERP Integration

    Withholding Payment or Having Your Payment Withheld Due to Disputes on Other Projects: Know Your Rights to Offset

    Traub Lieberman Partner Rina Clemens Selected as a 2023 Florida Super Lawyers® Rising Star

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case Denied

    Rich NYC Suburbs Fight Housing Plan They Say Will ‘Destroy’ Them

    Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete

    New York’s Highest Court Reverses Lower Court Ruling That Imposed Erroneous Timeliness Requirement For Disclaimers of Coverage

    The Louvre Abu Dhabi’s Mega-Structure Domed Roof Completed

    Colorado Court Holds No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claim

    Governor Signs Permit Extension Bill Extending Permit Deadlines to One Year

    Hake Law Attorneys Join National Law Firm Wilson Elser

    Sewage Flowing in London’s River Thames Draws Green Bond Demand

    Colorado “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    Parks and Degradation: The Mess at Yosemite

    For Breach of Contract Claim, There Needs to be a Breach of a Contractual Duty

    California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive

    What is Bad Faith?

    Design Professional Asserting Copyright Infringement And Contributory Copyright Infringement

    Wave Breaker: How a Living Shoreline Will Protect a Florida Highway and Oyster Bed

    Fort Lauderdale Partner Secures Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in High-Stakes Negligence Case

    The Law of Patent v Latent Defects

    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

    How Tech Is Transforming the Construction Industry in 2019

    Extreme Weather Events Show Why the Construction Supply Chain Needs a Risk-Management Transformation

    Appraisal May Include Cause of Loss Issues

    Mental Health and Wellbeing in Construction: Impacts to Jobsite Safety

    Giant Gas Pipeline Owner, Contractor in $900M Payment Battle
    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

    Anthony Luckie Speaks With Columbia University On Receiving Graduate Degree in Construction Administration Alongside His Father

    October 02, 2023 —
    New York, N.Y. (September 7, 2023) – New York Partner Anthony P. Luckie recently spoke with the Columbia University School of Professional Studies' Alumni publication regarding earning a Master of Science in Construction Administration alongside his father, as well as how the degree will benefit his law practice and clients. As the article explains, Mr. Luckie and his father completed Columbia’s Construction Administration Program last year – only one week before the birth of Mr. Luckie’s own son. Mr. Luckie described that being accepted into the program at Columbia – a school from which “some of the most important figures in American history” have graduated – “was a really big thrill . . . .” He further explained that although he felt a sense of pride in earning the degree, the fact that he and his father shared the experience held even greater meaning for him. He noted, “[W]hile it’s an incredible achievement for both of us to graduate from an Ivy League school, for me, that day was a culmination of a father raising his son. Standing there with him onstage . . . I made sure I took time to feel grateful.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Counsel Investigating Coverage Can be Sued for Invasion of Privacy

    January 28, 2019 —
    In Strawn v. Morris, Polich & Purdy (No. A150562, filed 1/4/19), a California appeals court held that policyholders could state a claim for invasion of privacy against an insurer’s coverage counsel and law firm, where the counsel had disseminated inadvertently produced tax returns to forensic accountants while evaluating coverage. In Strawn, a couple’s home was destroyed by fire and the husband was prosecuted for arson, but the criminal case was dropped. Notwithstanding, their insurance claim was denied on the ground that the husband intentionally set the fire and fraudulently concealed his actions. In addition to the insurance company, the insureds also named the carrier’s coverage counsel and his firm in the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, alleging causes of action for elder financial abuse and invasion of privacy. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    NY Appeals Court Ruled Builders not Responsible in Terrorism Cases

    January 13, 2014 —
    In a ruling on a case related to the September 11, 2001 attacks, New York federal appeals court stated that builders and developers could not be held responsible for losses linked to terrorism, Reuters reports. Circuit Judge Rosemary said the building “would have collapsed regardless of any negligence ascribed by plaintiffs' experts.” Scott Sweeney writing for the Schinnerer's RM Blog explained, “This decision should make it harder for constructors and designers to be held responsible for damages resulting from major acts of terrorism and unforeseeable events that can be nearly impossible to prepare for.” Read the full story at Reuters... Read the full story at Schinnerer's RM Blog... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Clock is Ticking: Construction Delays and Liquidated Damages

    September 18, 2023 —
    With the on-going shortage of construction workers in the industry and other factors ranging from weather to procurement problems, the threat of project delay is real. When a contract contains a liquidated damages clause for assessing project delays, real financial consequences for contractors can result. Courts have long allowed parties to apportion contractual risks as they deem appropriate especially in the commercial context where the parties are considered to be sophisticated even if their bargaining power is not equal. Liquidated damage provisions such as those for delay that are found in construction contracts are not unusual but they must be crafted in such a way as to be enforceable and not violate public policy. A liquidated damage clause in a construction contract is a customary way for the parties to deal with the possibility of delay in the completion of a project and the potential losses flowing from the delay.[1] In their most basic form, the party in breach, which is more often than not the contractor, is obligated to pay the non-breaching party, usually the project owner, some fixed sum of money for the period that exceeds the designated completion date that was agreed upon in advance and memorialized in the contract. (It is after all no secret that these provisions are primarily for the owner’s benefit.) The non-breaching party is then compensated for losses associated with the delay without the time and expense of having to prove in either a civil suit or an arbitration proceeding what the actual damages are. This option is particularly attractive to project owners because the liquidated damages assessment can simply be withheld from payments owed to the contractor once the agreed-upon completion date has been passed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Harrod, Peckar & Abramson
    Ms. Harrod may be contacted at tharrod@pecklaw.com

    Testimony from Insureds' Expert Limited By Motion In Limine

    October 21, 2015 —
    The court considered the scope of testimony to be offered by the insureds' expert regarding a policy written for sanitation districts. Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewage Bd. v. Am. Alternative Ins. Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112210 (N.D. N.Y. Aug. 25, 2015). The city of Binghamton and the city's Sewage Board sued American Alternative Insurance Corporation (AAIC) for coverage for a collapsed wall. AAIC sought the limit to testimony of the insureds' expert, Paul B. Nielander, through a motion in limine. AAIC argued that Nielander was not qualified as an expert in interpreting insurance policies. His knowledge and experience was limited to insurance practices in other states and the words contained in policies other than AAIC policies. He had no experience with (i) negotiating, drafting, or performing under an AAIC policy, (ii) handling claims or interpreting policies written in New York State, or (iii) drafting policies or otherwise participating in what he conceded was a "niche market" of providing insurance to sanitation districts. Further, Neilander was not qualified to offer expert analysis of when the structural failure of the wall occurred because he had no training or experience as an engineer. 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

    Project-Specific Policies and Products-Completed Operations Hazard Extensions

    May 31, 2021 —
    1. Understanding the “Products-Completed Operations Hazard” ISO commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies use the term “products-completed operations hazard” (“PCOH”) to define a category of risk which is treated specially by certain exclusions within the policy and often subject to separate limits of insurance. In construction, we think about PCOH as being about coverage for completed work. Bodily injury and property damage arising out of completed work is a significant construction risk. Most construction contracts include warranty and indemnity obligations for completed work. All states allow lawsuits to be brought alleging bodily injury or property damage because of completed work based on common law. Contract and common law claims are subject to statutes of limitation – laws which define the time in which suits must be brought. Most states provide exceptions to their statutes of limitation for common law claims – the most common example is an extension to file a lawsuit based on a latent defect until the defect is discovered. Most states also have “statutes of repose” – laws that set a date after which suit may no longer be brought, no matter what the circumstances are. A construction contractor, therefore, has potential liability until the statute of repose period has expired. Thus, a contractor looks to ensure that it has coverage for the PCOH for its full statute of repose liability period. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeremiah M. Welch, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Mr. Welch may be contacted at JWelch@sdvlaw.com

    The Difference Between Routine Document Destruction and Spoliation

    October 18, 2021 —
    In today’s world, there is a tendency to believe that everything must be preserved forever. The common belief is that documents, emails, text messages, etc. cannot be deleted because doing so may be viewed as spoliation (i.e., intentionally destroying relevant evidence). A party guilty of spoliation can be sanctioned, which can include an adverse inference that the lost information would have helped the other side. But that does not mean that contractors have to preserve every conceivable piece of information or data under all circumstances. There are key differences between routine document destruction (when done before receiving notice of potential claims or litigation) and spoliation. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decision in Appeal of Sungjee Constr. Co., Ltd., ASBCA Nos. 62002 and 62170 (Mar. 23, 2021) provides a good reminder. There, Sungjee challenged its default termination under a construction contract at Osan Air Base in South Korea. Sungjee argued that the government denied it access to the site for 352 days (out of a 450-day performance period) by refusing to issue passes that were needed to access the base. The government argued that it had issued the passes, but it could not produce them to Sungjee in discovery because they had been destroyed as part of a routine document destruction policy. The base security force issued hard copy passes and entered the information in a biometric system. The government was able to produce the biometric system data but not the hard copy passes because they were destroyed each year. Sungjee argued the government was guilty of spoliation and moved for sanctions. It asked the Board to draw an adverse inference that the passes would have shown that the government had not issued proper passes on a timely basis, which delayed Sungjee’s performance. The Board denied Sungjee’s motion for several reasons. Reprinted courtesy of Steven A. Neeley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Neeley may be contacted at steve.neeley@huschblackwell.com

    How Does Weather Impact a Foundation?

    December 27, 2021 —
    When it comes to commercial properties, it pays to be prepared. However, there are few things as unpredictable as the weather. With there being several weeks left in hurricane season, the weather can have quite an impact on the foundations of different properties. Whether it’s a new home or a century-old commercial property, preserving the integrity and safety of the structure is paramount. For those in construction looking to learn more about how the weather can sway a foundation, below are several examples along with tips on prevention. Rain, Rain Go Away! Hurricanes are known for bringing strong winds and plenty of rain. This can spell disaster for buildings with weak foundations. Torrential downpours can cause wet and weak soil. Too much rain—whether generated by hurricanes or frequent storms—can negatively impact the foundations of commercial properties and homes as well. It can also cause the soil to weaken, which can lead to a foundation sinking into the ground. For those that may have crawl spaces underneath their properties, heavy rains may cause water to seep under and into it. Water will sit in the crawl space, and it could take days or even weeks to dry out, causing moisture and possible mold damage. Reprinted courtesy of Brent Pearson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of