BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect 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


    Henderson Land to Spend $839 Million on Hong Kong Retail Complex

    Meet Your Future Team Members: AI Agents

    Revisiting OSHA’s Controlling Employer Policy

    To Sea or Not to Sea: Fifth Circuit Applies Maritime Law to Offshore Service Contract, Spares Indemnity Provision from Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act

    Construction Law Job Opps and How to Create Them

    Contractor Prevails in Part Against CalOSHA in Valley Fever Case

    Bad Welds Doom Art Installation at Central Park

    Governmental Action Exclusion Bars Claim for Damage to Insured's Building

    Hunton Insurance Practice, Attorneys Recognized in 2024 Edition of The Legal 500 United States

    Traub Lieberman Partner Jonathan Harwood Obtains Summary Judgment Determining Insurer Has No Duty to Defend or Indemnify

    'Right to Repair' and Fixing Equipment in a Digital Age

    Toddler Crashes through Window, Falls to his Death

    Eleven WSHB Attorneys Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars

    Punchlist: The News We Didn’t Quite Get To – May 2016

    Freddie Mac Eases Mortgage Rules to Limit Putbacks

    Senior Housing Surplus Seen as Boomers Spur Building Boom

    The G2G Year-End Roundup (2022)

    Third Circuit Holds That Duty to Indemnify "Follows" Duty to Defend

    Norristown, PA to Stop Paying Repair Costs for Defect-Ridden Condo

    Morrison Bridge Allegedly Crumbling

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim

    New Jersey Courts Speed Up Sandy Litigation

    Diggerland, UK’s Construction Equipment Theme Park, is coming to the U.S.

    Illinois Federal Court Applies Insurer-Friendly “Mutual Exclusive Theories” Test To Independent Counsel Analysis

    Surety Bond Producers Keep Eye Out For Illegal Waivers

    Don’t Miss the 2015 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    Rio de Janeiro's Bursting Real-Estate Bubble

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Confident about Construction Defect Bill

    Spencer Mayer Receives Miami-Dade Bar Association's '40 Under 40' Award

    Be Aware of Two New Statutes that Became Effective May 1, 2021

    COVID-19 Is Not Direct Physical Loss Or Damage

    BHA Sponsors the 9th Annual Construction Law Institute

    OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard Is in Flux

    ‘I’m a Scapegoat,’ Says Former CEO of Dubai Construction Firm

    Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property

    Navigating Casualty Challenges and Opportunities

    Beam Fracture on Closed Mississippi River Bridge Is at Least Two Years Old

    FAA Seeks Largest Fine Yet on Drones in Near-Miss Crackdown

    Time To “Construct” New Social Media Policies

    The Architecture of Tomorrow Mimics Nature to Cool the Planet

    Bid Bonds: The First Preventative Measure for Your Project

    Manhattan Townhouse Sells for a Record $79.5 Million

    Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit

    Chicago Makes First Major Update to City's Building Code in 70 Years

    Recent Statutory Changes Cap Retainage on Applicable Construction Projects

    A Court-Side Seat: Citizen Suits, “Facility” Management and Some Nuance for Your Hazard Ranking

    Homebuilders Offer Hope for U.K. Economy

    No Bad Faith in Insurer's Denial of Collapse Claim

    A Court-Side Seat – Case Law Update (February 2022)
    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

    Accessibility Considerations – What Your Company Should Be Aware of in 2021

    May 03, 2021 —
    Accessibility claims increased significantly in 2020, with this specific type of ADA-related case increasing by 23% from 2019 to 2020.1 This includes cases filed in federal court and those filed in California state court under the Unruh Act - with a direct reference to violation of the ADA.2 In California alone, a total of 989 cases were filed in 2020, representing almost 30% of all accessibility cases filed in the United States.3 These claims go beyond the traditional complaints related to a website maintained by an organization. While desktop websites dominate the overall number of lawsuit claims nationally, mobile apps continue to get significant attention along with a new trend in video content related claims. These video claims demand that all video have closed captions and audio descriptions.4 The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has created a surge in the reliance on websites and other platforms to accommodate working from home, online learning, as well as ordering groceries, food or other items online in an effort to stay home and safe. However, along with this substantial increase in demand, many users who rely on accessibility features have found many websites and related mobile applications to be inaccessible for their needs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Heather H. Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion
    Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com

    Although Property Damage Arises From An Occurrence, Coverage Barred By Business Risk Exclusions

    July 08, 2011 —

    The homeowners hired the insured to raise the structure of their home twenty-four inches above the flood zone. Lafayette Ins. Co. v. Peerboom, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58985 (S.D. Miss. June 2, 2011). When the insured’s crew returned from lunch one day, they found the house had fallen from hydraulic jacks being used to raise the structure a few inches at a time. There was substantial damage to the entire structure.

    The homeowners sued, asserting several claims, including negligence and breach of contract. The complaint alleged the homeowners entered a contract with the insured to raise their structure while maintaining its integrity. However, the insured failed to use proper equipment, which caused the house to fall and be completely destroyed.

    The insured tendered the claim to its insurer, Lafayette Insurance Company. Lafayette defended under a reservation of rights and filed suit for a declaratory judgment. Lafayette’s subsequent motion for summary judgment contended there was no “occurrence” alleged in the underlying complaint and, even if there was, the business risk exclusions barred coverage.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Floating Crane on Job in NYC's East River Has a Storied Past of Cold War Intrigue

    March 22, 2017 —
    The complex maneuver of lifting heavy prefabricated modules out of New York City's East River to build a university laboratory took careful planning and the work of one particular floating crane with a complicated past. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record
    Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

    Court Holds That One-Year SOL Applies to Disgorgement Claims Under B&P Section 7031

    November 23, 2020 —
    We’ve talked before about Business and Professions Code section 7031 which courts have referred to as “harsh[ ],” “unjust[ ]” and even “draconian.” Under Section 7031, a contractor performing work requiring a contractor’s license, but who doesn’t: (1) is prohibited from suing to recover payment for work performed; and (2) is required to disgorge all money paid by the project owner for work performed. This is true even if the project owner knew that the contractor was unlicensed, the contractor was only unlicensed during part of the time it performed work requiring a license, and even if the work performed by the contractor was free of defects. In short, it’s the nuclear bomb of remedies against a contractor. However, until now, no court has addressed when a project owner is permitted to raise a Business and Professions Code section 7031 claim against a contractor. In the next case, Eisenberg Village of the Los Angeles Jewish Home for the Aging v. Suffolk Construction Company, Inc., Case No B297247 (August 26, 2020), the 2nd District Court Appeal finally answers this question. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

    March 19, 2014 —
    In North Counties Engineering v. State Farm (No. A133713, filed 3/13/14), State Farm insured an engineering company under CGL insurance that had a professional services exclusion and included products-completed operations (PCO) coverage. The owner of the engineering company, NCE, contracted with a winery to construct a dam and associated works. Also on the project was the owner's son, who had his own construction company, NCD. There were multiple contracts, both oral and written, variously naming one company or the other. The evidence later showed that the father performed hands-on work for the project. After completion, the winery was sued over sediment and erosion caused by the dam. State Farm denied coverage on the ground that the professional services exclusion applied, as well as a mistaken belief that the policy had no PCO coverage. State Farm then changed its position and agreed to defend, but only going forward. The insured sued State Farm over past defense fees, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. The case went to trial and after testimony detailing State Farm's claim handling, the trial judge granted a nonsuit, finding that the professional services exclusion barred all coverage: "[I]f you look at the pleadings, the legal pleadings and the contracts, the NCE role is, as the engineering company, the support company, and that company was overseeing the [sic] NCD to make sure that whatever they did was done right.... NCE is the expert on the job, the professional providing professional services, design and construction, and also overseeing the work of NCD, the son’s business, which is doing more of the physical activity.... That takes professional expertise and I think all of what Mr. Akerstrom did was professional.... It was this professional work, and not 'something incidental to their professional involvement' that gave rise to the underlying actions. In this situation, it’s not a malpractice or E and O policy. It’s a business policy, which has good benefits, but is subject to the professional services exclusion." Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Appeals Court Rekindles the Spark

    March 16, 2017 —
    In John Trimble, et al. v. City of Albany, et al., 2016, 144 A.D.3d 1484; 42 N.Y.S. 3d 432 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, addressed the issue of governmental immunity for municipal fire companies. The court held that the plaintiff, John Trimble (Trimble), had sufficient evidence related to the four-pronged test for establishing a “special relationship” between a municipality and a citizen for liability to attach. In addition, the court held that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of governmental immunity. Specifically, regarding the latter holding, the court stated that, when there is no actual choice made on the part of the government, the government’s actions cannot be considered discretionary and immunity will not apply. In the case at hand, a fire occurred at Trimble’s home on the evening of February 2, 2013. Trimble called 911 and the Department of Fire and Emergency Services for the City of Albany (the Department) responded. After extinguishing the fire, the Department conducted an investigation and cleared the home. The Department’s investigators then told Trimble that the fire was extinguished and it was safe to enter the home. Trimble did so, removing some items so that he could stay with relatives that night. Several hours later, there was a rekindle and the rekindled fire destroyed the home. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

    No Coverage for Hurricane Sandy Damage

    August 02, 2017 —
    The magistrate recommended that summary judgment be entered in favor of the insurer, thereby eliminating coverage for property damage incurred during Hurricane Sandy. Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. v. Great Northern Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103015 (E.D. N.Y. June 30, 2017). Madelaine Chocolate owned a facility three blocks form the Atlantic Ocean and one block from the Jamaica Bay section of Long Island Sound. Hurricane Sandy arrived October 29, 2012. Madeline Chocolate's facility sustained significant damage to its inventory, production machinery and premises, as storm surge from both bodies of water hit the property. Operations ceased during the 2012 holiday season and beyond, resulting in millions of dollars in lost income. 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

    Over a Hundred Thousand Superstorm Sandy Cases Re-Opened

    March 12, 2015 —
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced yesterday that they will be reopening 144,000 flood insurance claims, reported the New Jersey Law Journal. The announcement comes weeks after reports that “some insurance companies denied thousands of claims after fraudulently altering engineering reports, as well as complaints that insurance companies systematically underpay on claims because they fear a backlash from FEMA.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of