BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering 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


    Why Insurers and Their Attorneys Need to Pay Close Attention to Their Discovery Burden in Washington

    Boston-area Asbestos-Abatement Firms Face Wage and Safety Complaints

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: The Colorado Court of Appeals’ Decision Protecting a Declarant’s Right to Arbitration in Construction Defect Cases

    Consultant’s Corner: Why Should Construction Business Owners Care about Cyber Liability Insurance?

    Hospital Inspection to Include Check for Construction Defects

    Eighth Circuit Considers Judicial Estoppel in Hazardous Substance Release-Related Personal Injury Case

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

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2022 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

    Construction Defects #10 On DBJ’s Top News Stories of 2015

    Florida trigger

    No Coverage for Tenant's Breach of Contract Claims

    Design-Build Contracting for County Road Projects

    Lake Texoma, Texas Condo Case may go to Trial

    Even with LEED, Clear Specifications and Proper Documentation are Necessary

    Recovering Unabsorbed Home Office Overhead Due to Delay

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    A Glimpse Into Post-Judgment Collections and Perhaps the Near Future?

    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

    Rikus Locati Selected to 2024 Northern California Rising Stars!

    High-Rise Condominium Construction Design Defects, A Maryland Construction Lawyer’s Perspective

    Congratulations to Partner Nicole Whyte on Receiving the Marcus M. Kaufman Jurisprudence Award

    Insurer Must Pay To Defend Product Defect Claims From Date Of Product Installation

    Leaky Wells Spur Call for Stricter Rules on Gas Drilling

    Affordable Housing should not be Filled with Defects

    The 2023 Term of the Supreme Court: Administrative and Regulatory Law Rulings

    Fraud, the VCPA and Construction Contracts

    Retainage on Pennsylvania Public Contracts

    More Regulations for Federal Contractors

    Insurers Can Sue One Another for Defense Costs on Equitable Indemnity and Equitable Contribution Basis

    Taking Advantage of New Tax Credits and Prevailing Wage Bonuses Under the Inflation Reduction Act for Clean Energy Construction Projects

    North Miami Beach Rejects as Incomplete 2nd Engineering Inspection Report From Evacuated Condo

    Building a Case: Document Management for Construction Litigation

    Reminder: Know Your Contractor Licensing Rules

    OIRA Best Practices for Administrative Enforcement and Adjudicative Actions

    Not Remotely Law as Usual: Don’t Settle for Delays – Settle at Remote Mediation

    2017 California Employment Law Update

    You May Be Able to Dodge a Bullet, But Not a Gatling Gun

    SCOTUS to Weigh Landowners' Damage Claim Against Texas DOT

    Condo Association Settles with Pulte Homes over Construction Defect Claims

    User Interface With a Building – Interview with Esa Halmetoja of Senate Properties

    A Proactive Approach to Construction Safety

    Insurer Waives Objection to Appraiser's Partiality by Waiting Until Appraisal Issued

    Top 10 Take-Aways from the 2024 Annual Forum Meeting in New Orleans

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: KATE GOLDEN

    The Importance of Engaging Design Professional Experts Early, with a Focus on Massachusetts Law

    Pre-Judgment Interest Not Awarded Under Flood Policy

    Don MacGregor To Speak at 2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    Las Vegas Harmon Hotel to be Demolished without Opening

    Construction Defect Dispute Governed by Contract Disputes Act not yet Suited to being a "Suit"

    When OSHA Cites You
    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

    New Jersey Courts Speed Up Sandy Litigation

    September 03, 2014 —
    In order to deal with the thousand plus property damage cases related to Hurricane Sandy the “U.S. District Chief Judge Jerome Simandle of the District of New Jersey, who sits in Camden, N.J., issued a standing order dated Aug. 13 that, in effect, cuts in half the amount of time that arbitrators and mediators will have to hear disputes over coverage and issue rulings,” the New Jersey Law Journal reported. “John O’Brien, chief deputy of operations for New Jersey’s federal courts, said that, as of Wednesday, 1,240 Sandy-related lawsuits had been filed in New Jersey and that 1,051 of those cases are still pending,” according to the New Jersey Law Journal. “Sixty of those pending cases have been referred to mediation and another six have been sent to arbitration panels, according to O’Brien.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    How Artificial Intelligence Can Transform Construction

    February 22, 2021 —
    Artificial intelligence and machine-learning algorithms have struggled to make sense of chaotic construction jobsites, but recent years have seen industry firms build the vast data lakes and analytics systems necessary for these machines to provide useful advice on how to plan, schedule and execute projects. In some cases, these AI advisors have become a standard part of some firms’ project delivery methods. But it’s still a challenge to convince construction professionals to listen to these AI advisors, and there are emerging questions of how risk will be allocated once algorithm-driven decisions start to steer projects. Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits

    October 20, 2016 —
    What Action Should Owners, Developers and Contractors Take in Anticipation of Successful Challenges to PLA Requirements? Recently, a federal court in New Jersey issued a decision which very well may invalidate all Project Labor Agreements (“PLA’s”) entered into as a condition to receipt of tax incentives for private development. Tax incentives utilized to promote private development are different, according to the court, than typical public works projects where PLA requirements have generally been held valid. Owners, developers, contractors and governmental entities must assess the consequences of this decision upon contracts already and to be awarded in the future where tax benefits may be linked to a PLA requirement. In 1993, in what has become known as the Boston Harbor Case, the United States Supreme Court held that state and local governmental entities may condition the award of public works contracts on the contractor’s agreement to enter into PLA’s. That decision has been followed nationwide since then to uphold the validity of various state and local law bidding conditions requiring successful bidders to negotiate and enter into project labor agreements as a condition to the award of public works contracts. The rationale is that when the government, like any other private party, is participating in an economic market, it may exercise its discretion in setting terms and conditions it believes best suit its interests in the efficient procurement of goods and services in that market. Therefore, a PLA requirement by a governmental entity engaged in market activity is no more or less valid than a PLA requirement on a purely private project. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory R. Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Begg may be contacted at gbegg@pecklaw.com Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas Federal Court Delivers Another Big Win for Policyholders on CGL Coverage for Construction-Defect Claims and “Rip-and-Tear” Damages

    March 14, 2022 —
    Insurers regularly argue that commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies are not performance bonds and therefore there is no coverage for claims seeking damages for defective or faulty workmanship. Insurers also argue there is no coverage for so-called “tear-out” or “rip-and-tear” damages, where fixing property damage requires replacing defective work that has not itself been damaged. Fortunately, in a newly decided case, a Texas federal district court rejected both arguments by an insurer. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company v. McMillin Texas Homes, LLC, No. SA-20-CV-01332-XR, 2022 WL 686727 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2022). As with most construction-defect claims, this case involved homeowner claims against a residential developer, McMillin Texas Homes (“McMillin”). After the homes were completed, homeowners complained about defects in the artificial stucco exterior finish and filed suit. McMillin tendered to its insurer, Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company (“Amerisure”). Amerisure then sued McMillin for declaratory relief, arguing that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the homeowner claims. McMillin filed a counterclaim alleging Amerisure breached its policies by refusing to defend or indemnify McMillin. Reprinted courtesy of Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears, Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com Mr. De Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Housing Markets Continue to Improve

    February 11, 2013 —
    The National Association of Home Builders reports that for a sixth consecutive month there has been an increase in the number of housing markets that have shown improvement. The January report saw 242 improving markets, which in February grew to 259. The NAHB notes that there are now improving markets in every state, “suggesting that the housing recovery has substantial momentum.” Not all markets showed continued improvement. Three metropolitan areas were dropped from the list of improving markets, but another twenty were added. The NAHB has been tracking this data since September 2011, when there were only twelve improving markets through the whole country. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Concurrent Causation Doctrine Applies Where Natural and Man-made Perils Combine to Create Loss

    January 19, 2017 —
    The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between the District Courts in applying the Concurrent Causation Doctrine where there were multiple causes creating the loss. Sebo v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 2016 Fla. LEXIS 2596 (Fla. Dec. 1, 2016). After purchasing his home, John Sebo procured an "all risks" homeowners policy provided by American Home Assurance Company (AHAC). Shortly after Sebo purchased the property, water began to intrude the home during rainstorms. Major water leaks occurred. It became clear that the home suffered from major design and construction defects. In October 2005, Hurricane Wilma further damaged the home. AHAC denied coverage for most of the claimed losses. It provided $50,000 for mold. The residence could not be repaired and was eventually demolished. 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

    New York State Trial Court: Non-Cumulation Provision in Excess Policies Mandates “All Sums” Allocation

    October 02, 2018 —
    On August 18, 2018, the New York Supreme Court, New York County, confirmed a referee’s finding that “all sums” allocation was required under excess policies issued by Midland Insurance Company because they included a non-cumulation provision. See Matter of Liquidation of Midland Ins. Co., Index No. 041294/1986 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 18, 2018). Midland was a multi-line carrier that wrote a substantial amount of excess coverage for Fortune 500 companies. In the 1980s, Midland faced significant exposure for environmental, asbestos and product liability claims. In 1986, it was placed in liquidation and the New York State Superintendent of Insurance (the Liquidator) was appointed as its receiver. Since then, the New York Supreme Court has presided over the liquidation proceedings. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Paul Briganti, White & Williams LLP
    Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

    BOO! Running From Chainsaw Wielding Actor then Falling is an Inherent Risk of a Haunted Attraction

    December 10, 2015 —
    In Griffin v. The Haunted Hotel, Inc. (filed 10/23/15; certified for publication 11/20/15), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant haunted attraction operator holding that the risk of a patron being frightened, then running away and falling is inherent in the fundamental nature of a haunted house attraction. The Court further determined there was no evidence the operator acted recklessly or unreasonably increased such risks beyond those inherent in the attraction. In October 2011, Plaintiff attended The Haunted Trail attraction, which featured actors in costumes jumping out holding prop weapons to scare patrons walking along a trail through Balboa Park. The Haunted Trail also employed a scare tactic known as the “Carrie” effect, in which the patrons walk through a fake exit and suddenly a chainsaw wielding actor appears and charges at the patrons for one final jolting scare. It was during this final scene of The Haunted Trail’s “Carrie” effect that Griffin became frightened by an actor brandishing a chainsaw causing him to suddenly run away in fear. As he was fleeing, Griffin fell and injured his wrist. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Laura C. Williams, R. Bryan Martin and Lawrence S. Zuckerman Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of