BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction safety 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


    Precedent-Setting ‘Green’ Apartments in Kansas City

    What Contractors Can Do to Address Rising Material Costs

    Green Investigations Are Here: U.S. Department of Justice Turns Towards Environmental Enforcement Actions, Deprioritizes Compliance Assistance

    Few Homes Available to Reno Buyers, Plenty of Commercial Properties

    General Indemnity Agreement Can Come Back to Bite You

    Design Immunity Does Not Shield Public Entity From Claim That it Failed to Warn of a Dangerous Condition

    Is Your Design Professional Construction Contract too Friendly? (Law Note)

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Gets Construction Defect Bill to Committee

    Consumer Confidence in U.S. Increases More Than Forecast

    Endorsements Preclude Coverage for Alleged Faulty Workmanship

    Following California Law, Federal Court Adopts Horizontal Allocation For Asbestos Coverage

    Palo Alto Proposes Time Limits on Building Permits

    Manhattan Homebuyers Pay Up as Sales Top Listing Price

    Virtual Jury Trials: The Next Wave of Remote Legal Practice

    Three Reasons Late Payments Persist in the Construction Industry

    Electronic Signatures On Contracts: Are They Truly Compliant?

    So a Lawsuit Is on the Horizon…

    Brad Pitt’s Foundation Sues New Orleans Architect for Construction Defects

    Hawaii Federal District Court Remands Coverage Dispute

    School System Settles Design Defect Suit for $5.2Million

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/18/23) – Zillow’s New Pilot Program, Production Begins at Solar Panel Plant in Georgia, and More Diversity on Contracts for Buffalo Bills Stadium

    Insurance Law Alert: Incorporation of Defective Work Does Not Result in Covered Property Damage in California Construction Claims

    White and Williams Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers

    California Supreme Court Upholds Precondemnation Procedures

    Construction Firms Complain of Missed Payments on Redevelopment Project

    Surety’s Several Liability Under Bonds

    Quick Note: Insurer Must Comply with Florida’s Claims Administration Act

    Construction Project Bankruptcy Law

    Colorado Abandons the “Completed and Accepted Rule” in Favor of the “Foreseeability Rule” in Determining a Contractor’s Duty to a Third Party After Work Has Been Completed

    Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Standard of Repose in Fruit Warehouse Case

    Hurricane Claim Cannot Survive Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    Miller Act Statute of Limitations and Equitable Tolling

    A Property Tax Exemption, Misapplied, in Texas

    Locals Concerns over Taylor Swift’s Seawall Misdirected

    Millennials Want Houses, Just Like Everybody Else

    Latin America’s Biggest Corporate Crime Gets a Worthy Epic

    Downtown Sacramento Building Riddled with Defects

    Michigan: Identifying and Exploiting the "Queen Exception" to No-Fault Subrogation

    Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

    Construction Companies Can Be Liable for “Secondary Exposure” of Asbestos to Household Members

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/10/23) – Wobbling Real Estate, Booming (and Busting) Construction, and Eye-Watering Insurance Premiums

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    Counsel Investigating Coverage Can be Sued for Invasion of Privacy

    Crime Lab Beset by Ventilation Issues

    Certificates of Insurance May Confer Coverage

    SFAA Commends U.S. House for Passage of Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

    Meet Your Future Team Members: AI Agents

    Just Because You Record a Mechanic’s Lien Doesn’t Mean You Get Notice of Foreclosure

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers®

    Seattle Independent Contractor Ordinance – Pitfalls for Unwary Construction Professionals
    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

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    January 17, 2023 —
    Haight attorneys have been selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers list. Congratulations to: Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    Massachusetts Federal Court Holds No Coverage for Mold and Water Damage Claim

    February 11, 2019 —
    In its recent decision in Clarendon National Ins. Co. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., 2019 WL 134614 (D. Mass. Jan. 8, 2019), the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts had occasion to consider the application of a prior knowledge provision in the context of a claim for mold and water-related bodily injury and property damage. Philadelphia insured a condominium property management company under a general liability insurance policy for the period September 1, 2007 through September 1, 2008. In 2009, the insured was sued by a unit owner alleging bodily injury and property damage resulting from toxic mold conditions resulting from leaks that had been identified in her unit as early as 2004. Notably, the complaint alleged that mold was identified in 2006 and that repair efforts were undertaken, but that these efforts all proved unsuccessful. Plaintiff alleged that she was forced to vacate her apartment in 2008 as a result of the conditions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

    Nuclear Energy Gets a Much-Needed Boost

    August 05, 2024 —
    President Joe Biden, as you’ve no doubt heard, has had a rough few weeks. Yet on Tuesday, he signed a bill into law that could well prove transformative for America’s energy future. Here’s hoping — whatever happens in November’s election — that more progress lies ahead. Known as the Advance Act, the bill seeks to remedy some long-standing flaws in nuclear-energy regulation. To reach net zero, the world will need to roughly double its nuclear capacity by 2050, according to the International Energy Agency. Yet constructing new nuclear plants in the US is expensive, time-consuming and encumbered by red tape. Partly as a result, the industry has stagnated: The share of electricity generated by nuclear is projected to decline to about 12% by 2050, from about 18% today. The Advance Act should help reverse that trend. As a start, it makes useful reforms to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, allowing the agency to hire more staff, reduce licensing fees, speed application processing and ease the burden of environmental reviews. It also makes a small but consequential change to the commission’s mission, requiring it — after decades of focusing on potential threats — to also consider the vast public benefits of nuclear energy when making regulatory decisions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Editorial Board, Bloomberg

    United States Supreme Court Backtracks on Recent Trajectory Away from Assertions of General Jurisdiction in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern

    August 01, 2023 —
    Washington, D.C. (June 28, 2023) – On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a sharply divided opinion that appears to backtrack on the Court’s steady trajectory away from assertions of general jurisdiction in recent years, e.g. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011), Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 2017, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017). Relying on a case from 1917, Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U. S. 93 (1917), Justice Gorsuch, writing on behalf of the plurality, (Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, Sotomayor, and Jackson) (Justice Alito concurring) found that Norfolk Southern “consented” to jurisdiction in Mallory via 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5301(a)(2)(i),(b) by registering to do business in Pennsylvania. This statute, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5301, specifically permits jurisdiction over a corporation “incorporat[ed] under or qualifi[ed]as a foreign corporation under the laws of this Commonwealth … for any cause of action that may asserted against him, whether or not arising from acts enumerated in this section.” In Pennsylvania Fire, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution in connection with a Missouri law that required an out-of-state insurance company desiring to transact any business in the state to file paperwork agreeing to (1) appoint a state official to serve as the company’s agent for service of process and (2) accept service on that official as valid in any suit. After more than a decade of complying with the law, Pennsylvania Fire was served with process and argued that the Missouri law violated due process. The Court unanimously found that there was “no doubt” that Pennsylvania Fire could be sued in Missouri because it had agreed to accept service of process in Missouri on any suit as a condition of doing business there. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Charles S. Anderson, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Anderson may be contacted at Charles.Anderson@lewisbrisbois.com

    Hawaii Supreme Court Says Aloha to Insurers Trying to Recoup Defense Costs From Policyholders

    January 02, 2024 —
    The Hawaii Supreme Court emphatically rejected insurer efforts to seek reimbursement of defense costs absent a provision in the policy providing for such reimbursement in St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Bodell Construction Company, No. SCCQ-22-0000658, 2023 WL 7517083, (Haw. Nov. 14, 2023). The state high court’s well-reasoned decision rests on bedrock law regarding insurance policy construction and application, follows the nationwide trend of courts compelling insurers to satisfy their contractual obligations in full, and should carry great weight as other jurisdictions continue to debate the same issue. In Bodell, the Hawaii Supreme Court joined the swelling ranks of courts recognizing that an insurer may not use a reservation of rights to create the extra-contractual “right” to recoup already paid defense costs for a claim on which the insurer ultimately owes no coverage. See, e.g., Am. & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Jerry’s Sport Ctr., Inc., 2 A.3d 526 (Pa. 2010). Other jurisdictions, such as California, will permit an insurer to seek reimbursement from a policyholder for defense costs incurred in defending claims later determined to be uncovered. See Buss v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 35 (1997) (holding insurers have a right to reimbursement of defense costs incurred for noncovered claims). Reprinted courtesy of Lara Degenhart Cassidy, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Cassidy may be contacted at lcassidy@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Damages in First Trial Establishing Liability of Tortfeasor Binding in Bad Faith Trial Against Insurer

    October 22, 2014 —
    The court considered whether, in a second trial for bad faith, the insured was required to again prove her damages, instead of relying on the jury's damage determination in the first trial where the tortfeasor's liability was established. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Paton, 2014 Fla. Ct. App. LEXIS 14362 (Fla. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2014). The insured was injured in a car accident caused by the negligence of the underinsured driver. Geico paid the insured the $10,000 policy limit under her policy. The insured's mother also had uninsured/underinsured coverage with Geico, with policy limits of $100,000. When the insured demanded the $100,000 policy limits from her mother's policy, Geico offered $1,000. Later, Geico offered $5,000, but returned to the $1,000 offer after the insured refused to settle. When the insured reduced her demand to $22,500, Geico did not respond. The insured sued and the case went to trial. The jury awarded $10,000 for past pain and suffering, and $350,000 for future pain and suffering. The verdict set the insured's total damages at $469,247. Geico did not file a motion for new trial nor did it appeal. Judgment was entered in favor of the insured, but was limited to the $100,000 UM policy limits. 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

    Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when General Contractor Does Not

    April 05, 2017 —
    After I wrote the title to this post, I thought, “Well, that says it all, doesn’t it?” I also considered the fact that for those that read this construction law blog on a regular basis, I am likely stating the obvious. I then thought about the fact that there can be confusion regarding the purpose of bonds versus insurance. Couple this with the fact that Murphy was an optimist, and I thought this would be a good reminder. Bonds and insurance have one fundamental difference between them. When your construction company buys insurance, that insurance is meant to protect your company. When your company provides a payment and/or performance bond, that bond is there not to protect your company but to protect everyone else on the job and the project itself. Where insurance will pay for your company’s qualifying errors so that that money does not come out of the bottom line, a bond contract will have an indemnification agreement whereby anything paid by the surety will then be reimbursed by you and your company dollar for dollar (as opposed to just the premium). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Are We Headed for a Work Shortage?

    June 17, 2015 —
    A recent Wall Street Journal article, Worker Shortage Hammers Builders, noted that construction industry employers are facing a tight labor market. “U.S. builders shed more than 2 million jobs during and after the housing bust. Now they say they can’t find enough carpenters, electricians, plumbers and other craftsmen for a growing pipeline of work.” That is certainly consistent with everything that I’ve heard and read about construction companies in the Midwest. Unfortunately, it seems as though the problem is only going to get worse. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com