BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling 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


    A Court-Side Seat: Environmental Developments on the Ninth Circuit

    Kahana Feld Welcomes Six Attorneys to the Firm in Q4 of 2023

    Quick Note: Notice of Contest of Claim Against Payment Bond

    Energy Company Covered for Business Interruption Losses Caused by Fire and Resulting in Town-Ordered Shutdown

    Architect, Engineer, and Design Professional Liens in California: A Different Animal than the Mechanics’ Lien

    San Francisco Airport’s Terminal 1 Aims Sky High

    New Zealand Using Plywood Banned Elsewhere

    Ten Years After Colorado’s Adverse Possession Amendment: a brief look backwards and forwards

    California Imposes New Disabled Access Obligations on Commercial Property Owners

    Are Modern Buildings Silently Killing Us?

    Injury to Employees Endorsement Eliminates Coverage for Insured Employer

    The Future of Construction Work with Mark Ehrlich

    Key California Employment Law Cases: October 2018

    Another (Insurer) Bites The Dust: Virginia District Court Rejects Narrow Reading of Pollution Exclusion

    Court Agrees to Stay Coverage Matter While Underlying State Action is Pending

    Are Defense Costs In Addition to Policy Limits?

    Hong Kong Property Tycoon Makes $533 Million Bet on Solar

    Seattle’s Audacious Aquarium Throws Builders Swerves, Curves, Twists and Turns

    Bailout for an Improperly Drafted Indemnification Provision

    Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP Expands into Georgia

    Congratulations to Partner Nicole Whyte on Being Chosen to Receive The 2024 ADL’s Marcus Kaufman Jurisprudence Award

    Foreman in Fatal NYC Trench Collapse Gets Jail Sentence

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

    Nevada Supreme Court Rejects Class Action Status, Reducing Homes from 1000 to 71

    Tests Find Pollution From N.C. Coal Ash Site Hit by Florence Within Acceptable Levels

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

    Construction Contract Basics: No Damages for Delay

    Making the Construction Industry a Safer place for Women

    The Economic Loss Rule and the Disclosure of Latent Defects: In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers – Two Recognized as Rising Stars

    General Contractors Must Plan to Limit Liability for Subcontractor Injury

    Senate Bill 15-091 Passes Out of the Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee

    Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment in Pinellas County Circuit Court

    Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage

    The Future of Pandemic Coverage for Real Estate Owners and Developers

    Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards

    Bridges Need More Attention

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

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    Know your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in Effect

    Missouri Legislature Passes Bill to Drastically Change Missouri’s “Consent Judgment” Statute

    Tension Over Municipal Gas Bans Creates Uncertainty for Real Estate Developers

    How U.S. Design and Architecture Firms Can Profit from the Chinese Market and Avoid Pitfalls

    Insured's Claim for Replacement Cost Denied

    Rights Afforded to Employees and Employers During Strikes

    Don’t Be Lazy with Your Tenders

    Ensuring Efficient Arbitration of Construction Disputes Involving Mechanic’s Liens

    ‘The Ground Just Gave Out’: How a Storm’s Fury Ravaged Asheville

    Colorado Statutes of Limitations and Repose, A First Step in Construction Defect Litigation

    Proposed Legislation for Losses from COVID-19 and Limitations on the Retroactive Impairment of Contracts
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Now Available: Seyfarth’s 50 State Lien Law Notice Requirements Guide (2023-2024 Edition)

    December 23, 2023 —
    Seyfarth’s Construction team is pleased to announce the release of our 2023-2024 edition of the 50 State Lien Law Notice Requirements Guide. The Guide provides the general time requirements for filing lien notices in each state, plus Washington, DC. Reprinted courtesy of Seyfarth Shaw LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Getting U.S to Zero Carbon Will Take a $2.5 Trillion Investment by 2030

    December 29, 2020 —
    It’s going to take $2.5 trillion in spending over the next decade to get the U.S. on a path to a carbon-free economy, but the transition will help to pay for itself, Princeton University researchers say. Achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 -- a central goal of President-elect Joe Biden’s climate plan -- would require expanding renewable-energy systems, building more efficient homes and putting 50 million electric cars on the road, according to a report released Tuesday. The effort, two years in the making, is the first major assessment since the election detailing how the U.S. can transition to an energy system that satisfies scientific guidance for keeping the climate livable. While the upfront costs are significant, they would be offset by savings associated with switching to cheaper electricity and the creation of as many as 1 million new jobs, according to the researchers, who shared an earlier draft with Biden’s transition team. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Will Wade & Eric Roston, Bloomberg

    1st District Joins 2nd District Court of Appeals and Holds that One-Year SOL Applies to Disgorgement Claims

    June 14, 2021 —
    We’re beginning to see a trend. This past year, the 2nd District Court of Appeals, in Eisenberg Village of the Los Angeles Jewish Home for the Aging v. Suffolk Construction Company, 53 Cal.App.5th 1201 (2020), held for the first time that a one (1) year statute of limitations period beginning upon substantial completion of a project applies to disgorgement claims under Business and Professions Code section 7031. In San Francisco CDC LLC v. Webcor Construction L.P., the 1st District Court of Appeals became the second Court of Appeals in the state to hold that a one (1) year statute of limitations beginning upon completion or cessation of work on a project applies to disgorgement claims under Business and Professions Code section 7031. The San Francisco CDC LLC Case The Defect Action In September 2005, San Francisco CDC LLC entered into a $144 million construction contract with Webcor Construction, Inc. doing business as Webcor Builders to build the InterContinental Hotel in San Francisco, California. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Recent Third Circuit OSHA Decision Sounds Alarm for Employers and Their Officers

    October 14, 2019 —
    The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion that should serve as a warning not only to employers, but to their corporate officers. The case against Altor, Inc., a New Jersey-based construction company, began in 2012 when the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) directed Altor and its sole director and officer to pay a $412,000 penalty (Payment Order) to OSHA for several violations, including the failure to comply with fall protection standards. The company refused to pay, arguing that it did not possess sufficient assets. The Secretary of Labor filed a Petition for Civil Contempt against Altor and its President, Vasilios Saites. The court acknowledged that the company and Mr. Saites could defend against a contempt finding by showing that he and the company were unable to comply with the Payment Order. Beyond merely stating that they could not pay, the court required that they must show that they made good faith efforts to comply with the Order. After considering all of the evidence, the court ultimately relied on Altor’s bank records, which reflected that the company ended each month during a two-year period after the violations with a positive bank balance. Thus, the court determined that Altor could have made “at least relatively modest” payments and emphasized that the company never attempted to negotiate a reduced sum or a payment plan. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John Baker, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Baker may be contacted at bakerj@whiteandwilliams.com

    Locals Concerns over Taylor Swift’s Seawall Misdirected

    January 13, 2014 —
    Homeowners in Westerly, Rhode Island have been concerned about alterations made to a seawall below Taylor Swift’s seaside home in Rhode Island, particularly in that some large boulders have been moved to the shore. But officials with Rhode Island’s Coastal Resource Management Council have assured residents that the work is being done at their request, according to the Westerly Sun. In addition to moving boulders, the project repairs an existing seawall which was damaged by Hurricane Sandy. The cost is estimated to be $2 million. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer’s Broad Duty to Defend in Oregon, and the Recent Ruling in State of Oregon v. Pacific Indemnity Company

    January 02, 2024 —
    Oregon law mandates a broad duty to defend, requiring insurers to provide legal representation to their policyholders whenever there is a potential for coverage under the policy. The significance of this broad interpretation means that an insurer has a duty to defend an insured even in situations where the alleged facts only imply a covered claim, and even in situations where the underlying claim is ultimately not covered by the policy. The insurer’s duty to defend is triggered if the allegations of the complaint, reasonably interpreted, could result in the insured being held liable for damages covered by the policy. This is referred to as the “four-corners” rule; it is also sometimes referred to as the eight-corners rule (for the four corners of the complaint plus the four corners of the policy). Oregon’s adoption of a broad interpretation of the duty to defend affirmatively places the onus on insurers to err on the side of coverage. This broad duty to defend is based on the principle that an insured should not have to bear the expense of defending a lawsuit that the insurer may ultimately have to pay for. The duty to defend is also important because it helps ensure that insureds have access to legal representation when faced with a lawsuit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Keith Sparks, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Sparks may be contacted at keith.sparks@acslawyers.com

    Understanding Insurance Disputes in Construction Defect Litigation: A Review of Acuity v. Kinsale

    December 17, 2024 —
    Construction projects are inherently complex, and insurance coverage plays a crucial role in managing risks, especially when unforeseen issues arise. The case of Acuity v. Kinsale demonstrates the tangled web of insurance obligations, especially when multiple insurers provide coverage for a single event. This case, involving Monarch Stucco, Inc., Acuity, and Kinsale Insurance Company, sheds light on the challenges that contractors, subcontractors, and insurers may face when disputes over liability and coverage occur. The Background of the Case At the heart of this dispute lies a construction defect at a retirement community project in Lakewood, Colorado. Monarch Stucco, Inc. (“Monarch”), a subcontractor hired by GH Phipps Construction Company (“Phipps”), was responsible for stucco work on the project. Unfortunately, defects in the building’s envelope system, particularly Monarch’s stucco work, led to significant damage and costly repairs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    “Time Is Money!” In Construction and This Is Why There Is a Liquidated Damages Provision

    February 01, 2022 —
    In construction, the adage “Time is Money!” rings true for all parties involved on a project. This includes an owner of a project that wants a project completed on time, i.e., by a substantial completion date. While substantial completion is often defined as when an owner can use a project for its intended purpose, this intended purpose typically equates to beneficial occupancy (in new construction) and other factors as identified in the contract. The best mechanism for an owner to reinforce time and the substantial completion date is through a liquidated damages provision (also known as an LD provision) that includes a daily monetary rate for each day of delay to the substantial completion date. A liquidated damages provision is not designed, and should NEVER be designed, to serve as a penalty because then it would be unenforceable. Instead, it should be designed to reasonably compensate an owner for delay to the substantial completion date that cannot be ascertained with any reasonable degree of certainty at the time the contract is being negotiated and executed. (Liquidated damages are MUCH easier to prove than actual damages an owner may incur down the road.) As an owner, you don’t really want to assess liquidated damages because that means the project is not substantially completed on time. And, in reality, a timely completed and performing project should always be better and more profitable than a late and underperforming project. However, without the liquidated damages provision, there isn’t a great way to hold a contractor’s feet to the fire with respect to the substantial completion date. 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