BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness construction
    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


    Five Steps Employers Should Take In the Second Year Of the COVID-19 Pandemic

    Denver Condo Development Increasing, with Caution

    Pool Contractor’s Assets Frozen over Construction Claims

    Bankruptcy on a Construction Project: Coronavirus Edition

    COVID-19 and Mutual Responsibility Clauses

    What to do When the Worst Happens: Responding to a Cybersecurity Breach

    Firm Seeks to Squash Subpoena in Coverage CD Case

    Tall Mass Timber Buildings Now Possible Under 2021 IBC Code Changes

    Defining Construction Defects

    Texas Shortens Cut-Off Date for Suits Against Homebuilders Who Provide a 6-Year Written Warranty

    The EPA and the Corps of Engineers Propose Another Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”

    Federal Court in New York Court Dismisses Civil Authority Claim for COVID-19 Coverage

    Texas Legislature Puts a Spear in Doctrine Making Contractor Warrantor of Owner Furnished Plans and Specifications

    Administrative and Environmental Law Cases Decided During the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2023 “Atlanta 500” List

    New Jersey Appellate Court Reinstates Asbestos Action

    Denver Airport's Renovator Uncovers Potential Snag

    Equal Access to Justice Act Fee Request Rejected in Flood Case

    The Construction Industry's Health Kick

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Museums

    No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

    $6 Million in Punitive Damages for Chinese Drywall

    Not Just Another Client Alert about Cyber-Risk and Effective Cybersecurity Insurance Regulatory Guidance

    Congratulations to Walnut Creek Partner Bryan Stofferahn and Associate Jeffrey Schilling for Winning a Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Their Client, a Regional Grocery Store!

    Colorado Senate Voted to Kill One of Three Construction Defect Bills

    A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Substitution Hearings Under California’s Listing Law

    Insurance Tips for Contractors

    Montreal Bridge Builders Sue Canada Over New Restrictions

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    White and Williams recognized with Multiple Honorees in the Chambers 2023 USA Guide

    "Decay" Found Ambiguous in Collapse Case

    Federal Court Reiterates Broad Duty to Defend in Additional Insured Cases

    Office REITs in U.S. Plan the Most Construction in Decade

    Contractor’s Burden When It Comes to Delay

    Deducting 2018 Real Property Taxes Prepaid in 2017 Comes with Caveats

    Supreme Court Addresses Newly Amended Statute of Repose for Construction Claims

    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    Labor Shortages In Construction

    Will On-Site Robotics Become Feasible in Construction?

    The Great London Property Exodus Is in Reverse as Tenants Return

    Not All Design-Build Projects are Created Equal

    Manufacturer of Asbestos-Free Product May Still Be Liable for Asbestos Related Injuries

    Supreme Court of Kentucky Holds Plaintiff Can Recover for Stigma Damages in Addition to Repair Costs Resulting From Property Damage

    Two New Developments in Sanatoga, Pennsylvania

    PSA: Virginia DOLI Amends COVID Workplace Standard

    Recycled Water and New Construction. New Standards Being Considered

    Update: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in West Virginia v. EPA

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

    Obama Asks for $302 Billion to Fix Bridges and Potholes

    California Limits Indemnification Obligations of Design Professionals
    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

    Contractor Sues Construction Defect Claimants for Defamation

    June 28, 2013 —
    Andrew Smith and Armando Delgado both own condos in the Willowbrook condominium complex in East Manatee, Florida, and they’ve both been dealing with structural problems with their homes. Now they’re together in another matter as the contractor who has been hired to do the repairs has sued them for defamation. The homeowners claim that the construction company is trying to intimidate them. KB Homes, which built the Willowbrook complex, hired Dueall Construction to repair the buildings. Anthony Robbins, one of the owners of Dueall, is currently on probation for cocaine trafficking. Smith put this information on a website associated with complaints about KB Homes, while Delgado put a banner on the back of his pickup truck. The lawsuit claims that Smith and Delgado “have initiated a campaign to smear and defame Dueall and its owners.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Virtual Jury Trials: The Next Wave of Remote Legal Practice

    July 13, 2020 —
    One of the most obvious and unavoidable results of the COVID-19 crisis has been the postponement of jury service and, by extension, all jury trials. Given the inherent difficulties of convening juries in a world of social distancing, it is likely that multiple jurisdictions will be unable to conduct live jury trials for at least the next several months. Recognizing the mounting delay and substantial docket backlog that is attendant to several months without jury trials, one court most recently permitted the litigants, upon consent, to try a new innovation – the nation’s first virtual jury trial conducted entirely on the Zoom platform. More than two dozen potential jurors in Collin County, Texas attended jury selection from home by smartphone, laptop, and tablet, a process that was streamed live on YouTube. The presiding judge occasionally provided prospective jurors technical advice on how to best use their devices. Once selected, the jurors virtually attended a one-day, “summary jury trial” of an insurance dispute in which they heard a condensed version of the case and delivered a non-binding verdict. The parties were then able to gauge how their cases would fare before a jury in a full-scale trial and, with that insight, agreed to proceed to a mediation in an attempt to reach a resolution. Court officials further touted the abbreviated, non-binding experience as an ideal test for the viability of remotely holding jury trials that would result in a final judgment. This real-world test, albeit in a non-binding exercise, may be an indication of things to come, as courts in Indiana and Arizona have already communicated an intention to conduct jury trials remotely once able. Reprinted courtesy of David R. Zaslow, White and Williams and Mark Paladino, White and Williams Mr. Zaslow may be contacted at zaslowd@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Paladino may be contacted at paladinom@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    DOE Abruptly Cancels $13B Cleanup Award to BWXT-Fluor Team

    February 01, 2021 —
    The U.S. Energy Dept. has cancelled a $13-billion, 10-year contract awarded just a few months ago to a team led by BWXT Technical Services and Fluor Federal Services to manage millions of gallons of radioactive waste stored underground at its Hanford, Wash., former weapons site—confirming plans for a major scope expansion and lengthy reprocurement but sharing few details. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Holds That Insurance Producer Cannot Be Liable for Denial of COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

    November 23, 2020 —
    After an insurance carrier denied a lawyer and her law firm’s claim for lost business income due to the COVID-19-related shutdown, she sued both her carrier and the insurance producer that procured the policy. See Wilson v. Hartford Casualty Company, No. 20-3384 (E.D.Pa. Sep. 30, 2020). In one of the first cases to consider producer liability in COVID-19 cases, Judge Eduardo Robreno dismissed the lawsuit against the producer and the carrier. USI procured the Policy from Hartford for Rhonda Hill Wilson and her law firm. The Policy included coverage for lost business income and extra expense caused by direct physical loss of, or damage to property. Similarly, the Policy covered lost business income if a nearby property experienced a direct physical loss that caused a civil authority to issue an order that prohibited access to the law firm’s property. The Policy also included a virus exclusion “for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by . . . [p]resence, growth, proliferation, spread or any activity of . . . virus.” Judge Robreno did not decide whether the Policy afforded any coverage to Wilson and her law firm for their COVID-19 losses. Rather, he found that even if they could, the virus exclusion unambiguously barred any coverage they could possibly claim. For that reason, Judge Robreno dismissed the claims against Hartford. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher P. Leise, White and Williams LLP and Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP Mr. Leise may be contacted at leisec@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer

    September 28, 2020 —
    Property insurance policies (first party insurance policies) contain post-loss obligations that an insured must (and should) comply with otherwise they risk forfeiting insurance coverage. One post-loss obligation is the insurer’s right to request the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss. Not complying with a post-loss obligation such as submitting a sworn proof of loss can lead to unnecessary headaches for the insured. Most of the times the headache can be avoided. Even with a sworn proof of loss, there is a way to disclaim the finality of damages and amounts included by couching information as estimates or by affirming that the final and complete loss is still unknown while you work with an adjuster to quantify the loss. The point is, ignoring the obligation altogether will result in a headache that you will have to deal with down the road because the property insurer will use it against you and is a headache that is easily avoidable. And, it will result in an added burden to you, as the insured, to demonstrate the failure to comply did not actually cause any prejudice to the insurer. By way of example, in Prem v. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2044a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), the insured notified their property insurer of a plumbing leak in the bathroom. The insurer requested for the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss per the terms of the insured’s property insurance policy. The insurer follow-up with its request for a sworn proof of loss on a few occasions. None was provided and the insured filed a lawsuit without ever furnishing a sworn proof of loss. The insurer moved for summary judgment due the insured’s failure to comply with the post-loss obligations, specifically by not submitting a sworn proof of loss, and the trial court granted the insurer’s motion. Even at the time of the summary judgment hearing, the insured still did not submit a sworn proof of loss. 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

    The Four Forces That Will Take on Concrete and Make Construction Smart

    September 17, 2018 —
    When it comes to building a bridge, what prevents it from having the most enduring and sustainable life span? What is its worst enemy? The answer is, simply, the bridge itself—its own weight. Built with today’s construction processes, bridges and buildings are so overly massed with energy and material that they’re inherently unsustainable. While concrete is quite literally one of the foundations of modern construction, it’s not the best building material. It’s sensitive to pollution. It cracks, stainsand collapses in reaction to rain and carbon dioxide. It’s a dead weight: Take San Francisco’s sinking, leaning Millennium Tower as an example. Reprinted courtesy of Massimiliano Moruzzi, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twelve White and Williams Lawyers

    September 15, 2016 —
    The 2017 Best Lawyers in America list includes twelve White and Williams lawyers. Inclusion in Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer-review. The methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Best Lawyers employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of quality legal services.
      2017 Best Lawyers
    • Frank Bruno, Patent Law
    • Richard Campbell, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
    • James Coffey, Mergers and Acquisitions Law
    • Timothy Davis, Real Estate Law
    • William Hussey, Tax Law; Trusts and Estates
    • Michael Kraemer, Employment Law - Management; Labor Law - Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment
    • Randy Maniloff, Insurance Law
    • John Orlando, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
    • Thomas Rogers, Real Estate Law
    • Joan Rosoff, Real Estate Law
    • Craig Stewart, Insurance Law; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
    • William Taylor, Construction Law
    • Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

      Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington and Associate Kevin Sullivan Win Summary Judgment Dismissing Homeowner’s Claim that Presented an Issue of First Impression in New Jersey

      December 02, 2019 —
      On July 12, 2019, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP’s Gregory S. Pennington and Kevin Sullivan secured summary judgment dismissing a homeowner’s claim for damaged flooring. The claim at issue arose from the homeowners’ attempt to discard their refrigerator. In the process of removing the refrigerator, the homeowners scratched their kitchen and dining room floors. The homeowners made a claim under their homeowners policy for the cost to repair and replace the damaged flooring. Their homeowners’ insurer denied their claim based on a policy exclusion barring coverage for damage consisting of or caused by marring and scratching. When their insurer denied coverage, the homeowners filed suit in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division in Bergen County. The case presented the issue of first impression in New Jersey of whether a homeowner’s self-inflicted, but accidental damaging of its own floors was barred by the homeowner’s policy’s marring or scratching exclusion. Greg and Kevin successfully argued that the exclusion applied to bar coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Pennington, Traub Lieberman and Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman Mr. Pennington may be contacted at gpennington@tlsslaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of