BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildings
    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


    Insurance Client Alert: Mere Mailing of Policy and Renewals Into California is Not Sufficient Basis for Jurisdiction Over Bad Faith Lawsuit

    ACEC Research Institute Releases New Engineering Industry Forecast

    SunEdison Gets Shinsei Bank Funding for Japan Solar Power Plant

    Multifamily Building Pushes New Jersey to Best Year since 2007

    Drones Used Despite Uncertain Legal Consequences

    Philadelphia Voters to Consider Best Value Bid Procurment

    Claim for Consequential Damages Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- An Alternative

    BHA Sponsors the 9th Annual Construction Law Institute

    The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Coronavirus, Force Majeure, and Delay and Time-Impact Claims

    Coverage Found For Cleanup of Superfund Site Despite Pollution Exclusion

    Event-Cancellation Insurance Issues During a Pandemic

    California Court of Appeal Finds Alleged Inadequate Defense by Insurer-Appointed Defense Counsel Does Not Trigger a Right to Independent Counsel

    OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS Unveiled

    A Termination for Convenience Is Not a Termination for Default

    Good Indoor Air Quality Keeps Workers Healthy and Happy

    Pre-Judgment Interest Not Awarded Under Flood Policy

    Green Energy Can Complicate Real Estate Foreclosures

    Warranty Reform Legislation for Condominiums – Unfair Practices used by Developers and Builders to avoid Warranty Responsibility for Construction Defects in Newly Constructed Condominiums

    Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers®

    Co-Founding Partner Jason Feld Named Finalist for CLM’s Outside Defense Counsel Professional of the Year

    In Louisiana, Native Americans Struggle to Recover From Ida

    Did New York Zero Tolerance Campaign Improve Jobsite Safety?

    Are You Satisfying WISHA Standards?

    Former Trump Atlantic City Casino Set for February Implosion

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-for-Delay Clause

    California Court Forces Insurer to Play Ball in COVID-19 Insurance Coverage Suit

    10 Year Anniversary – Congratulations Greg Podolak

    Subcontractor Strength Will Drive Industry’s Ability to Meet Demand, Overcome Challenges

    Insurer Must Defend and Indemnify Construction Defect Claims Under Iowa Law

    Consumer Protection Act Whacks Seattle Roofing Contractor

    Supreme Court Addresses Newly Amended Statute of Repose for Construction Claims

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

    The Condo Conundrum: 10 Reasons Why There's a 'For Sale' Shortage in Seattle

    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

    When is a Residential Subcontractor not Subject to the VCPA? Read to Find Out

    Coverage Exists for Landlord as Additional Insured

    Why You Should Consider “In House Counsel”

    Montana Court Finds Duty to Defend over Construction Defect Allegation

    Toward Increased Citizen Engagement in Urban Planning

    DA’s Office Checking Workers Comp Compliance

    Blackstone Suffers Court Setback in Irish Real Estate Drama

    Massive Redesign Turns Newark Airport Terminal Into a Foodie Theme Park

    Washington, DC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium Expires

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

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs Paid by Other Insurers

    Christopher Leise Recognized by US News – Best Lawyers 2022 "Lawyer of the Year"

    Business Insurance Names Rachel Hudgins Among 2024 Break Out Award Winners
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Court of Appeals Discusses Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in Public Works Contracting

    August 17, 2017 —
    The implied duty of good faith and fair dealing is implied in every contract, including construction contracts. Generally speaking, this implied duty requires parties cooperate with one another so that they each obtain the full benefit of their contracted bargain. Recently, the Court of Appeals (Division II) in Nova Contracting, Inc. v. City of Olympia discussed this duty’s application to a public works contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay K. Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com

    Be Careful with Good Faith Payments

    February 24, 2020 —
    Sometimes doing the expedient thing and what looks good at the time can come back to bite you. Just ask 3M Company. In Faneuil, Inc. v. 3M Co., the Virginia Supreme Court considered a customer services subcontract between Faneuil and 3M relating to a toll collection contract 3M entered into with ERC. The subcontract had a “pay if paid” clause in it requiring payment to 3M from ERC before ERC was required to pay Faneuil, a written change order provision and a base monthly payment to Faneuil for the services that could be reduced in the event of less than expected toll collections. Further, the subcontract stated that if either party settled 3rd party claims, that settlement would not bind the other party to the subcontract absent consent or Court order. Faneuil was then alleged to have been required to provide “Special Services” relating to manual identification of license plates and other information necessary for toll billing due to 3M’s alleged failure to provide adequate imaging services. Faneuil requested (without written change order) and 3M promised to pay extra for these services. When 3M was slow to pay for the special services, Faneuil did what you would expect and threatened to stop providing them. Instead of contesting the right to the work, 3m made sporadic “good faith” payments to induce continued Special Services from Faneuil. Eventually 3M’s issues caused ERC to stop payments and thus 3M stopped paying Faneuil. 3M then settled the payment claims with ERC and still failed to pay Faneuil. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Ninth Circuit Resolves Federal-State Court Split Regarding Whether 'Latent' Defects Discovered After Duration of Warranty Period are Actionable under California's Lemon Law Statute

    December 17, 2015 —
    In Daniel v. Ford Motor Company (filed 12/02/15), the Ninth Circuit resolved a federal and state court split on the issue of whether consumers can sustain a breach of implied warranty claim under California’s Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (aka the “lemon law” statute) for “latent” defects discovered after the warranty period has expired. Answering this question in the affirmative, the Ninth Circuit followed the holding in the California state appellate decision of Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co. 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 285 (2009), which definitively determined there is nothing in California’s lemon law that requires a consumer to discover a latent defect during the duration of the warranty. The underlying class action lawsuit was brought in federal district court by purchasers of Ford Focus vehicles. The plaintiffs alleged Ford was aware of, but failed to disclose, a rear suspension defect in the Focus that resulted in premature tire wear which can cause decreased vehicle control, catastrophic tire failure and drifting on wet or snowy roads. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims including violations of California’s Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. Ford successfully moved for summary judgment on all claims prompting an appeal. Reprinted courtesy of Laura C. Williams, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    More Details Emerge in Fatal Charlotte, NC, Scaffold Collapse

    January 17, 2023 —
    Details have emerged in the Jan. 2 scaffold collapse at an under-construction apartment high-rise in Charlotte, N.C. that killed three workers and injured two. A work suspension continues during an investigation led by the North Carolina Dept. of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Division.  Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lacey, Engineering News-Record and Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The NAR asks FAA to Amend their Drone Rules for Real Estate Use

    September 24, 2014 —
    Housing Wire reported that the National Association of Realtors (NAR) “is pushing for an exception for Realtors in the current rules on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) technology since their motives don’t disrupt safety concerns, according to a letter sent on Tuesday to the FAA.” According to Housing Wire, the NAR believes that real estate professionals would benefit from UAV technology, more commonly referred to as drones, in a variety of ways, “including, law enforcement, environmental scanning, geographical surveys and disaster recovery assessments.” The NAR stated, as quoted in Housing Wire, “Use of UAV technology by the real estate industry is simple compared to other applications such as land surveying or law enforcement. The use of UAV technology would be limited in scope to the property itself. Properly written regulation would permit the use of UAV technology within the real estate industry, while maintaining safety in the NAS and privacy of citizens.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hybrid Contracts for The Sale of Goods and Services and the Predominant Factor Test

    February 15, 2021 —
    Florida’s Uniform Commercial Code (also known as the UCC) applies to transactions for goods. “Goods” is defined by Article II of the UCC as “all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (chapter 678) and things in action.” Fla. Stat. s. 672.105(1). The UCC does NOT apply to transactions for services. Transactions for services are governed by common law. Oftentimes, transactions or contracts include BOTH goods and services. In this scenario, referred to as a hybrid contract, does the UCC or common law apply? In this scenario, courts apply the predominant factor test to determine whether the UCC or common law governs the transaction:
    Whether the UCC or the common law applies to a particular hybrid contract depends on “whether the[ ] predominant factor, the [ ] thrust, the[ ] purpose [of the contract], reasonably stated, is the rendition of service, with goods incidentally involved (e.g., contract with artist for painting) or is a transaction of sale, with labor incidentally involved (e.g., installation of a water heater in a bathroom).” In such instances, the determination whether the “predominant factor” in the contract is for goods or for services is a factual inquiry unless the court can determine that the contract is exclusively for goods or services as a matter of law. Allied Shelving & Equipment, Inc. v. National Deli, LLC, 154 So.3d 482, 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (citations omitted).
    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

    Risky Business: Contractual Versus Equitable Rights of Subrogation

    December 16, 2023 —
    In Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Infrastructure Eng’g. Inc., 2023 Ill. App. LEXIS 383, the insurer, Zurich American Insurance Company (Insurer) proceeded as subrogee of Community College District No. 508 d/b/a City Colleges of Chicago and CMO, a Joint Venture. The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District (Appellate Court) addressed whether Insurer – who issued a builder’s risk policy to insure a building during construction – could subrogate on behalf of the building owner, City Colleges of Chicago (City Colleges), who was part of the joint venture and an additional named insured, but who had not been directly paid for the underlying loss. The Appellate Court determined that the policy language established that the carrier was contractually permitted to subrogate on behalf of all additional named insureds on the policy, including the building owner. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
    Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com

    Federal Court Holds that Demolition Exclusion Does Not Apply and Carrier Has Duty to Defend Additional Insureds

    September 02, 2024 —
    In the recent case of Travelers Indem. Co. v. Trisura Specialty Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101953 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2024), the court had occasion to consider the classic additional insured fact pattern of a construction accident. Travelers insured the general contractor and provided a defense to the general contractor as well as its wholly owned subsidiary. Trisura insured the subcontractor, who employed the injured worker. Travelers brought suit, alleging that Trisura is obligated to defend and indemnify the general contractor, its subsidiary, the owner of the building (The City of New York), and the tenant. Trisura denied any obligation to provide coverage due to the application of the “Demolition Exclusion” to the Trisura policy, which provides, in part, that there is no coverage for injury or damage arising out of the demolition of any building or structure which has original ground height in excess of three stories. The accident occurred during the interior demolition of the fifth floor of the building. The court held that the Demolition Exclusion applies only when there is a complete tearing down, razing, or destruction of an entire building. As the accident occurred during interior demolition, the exclusion did not apply. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com