BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield 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


    APROPLAN and GenieBelt Merge, Creating “LetsBuild” – the Build Phase End-to-End Digital Platform

    Don’t Conspire to Build a Home…Wait…What?

    Small to Midsize Builders Making Profit on Overlooked Lots

    Contractors Can No Longer Make Roof Repairs Following Their Own Inspections

    A Networked World of Buildings

    Public Contract Code 9204 – A New Mandatory Claims Process for Contractors and Subcontractors – and a Possible Trap for the Unwary

    Yet ANOTHER Reason not to Contract without a License

    Policyholders' Coverage Checklist in Times of Coronavirus

    Florida Former Public Works Director Fined for Ethics Violation

    Mexico City Metro Collapse Kills 24 After Neighbors’ Warnings

    New York City Dept. of Buildings Explores Drones for Facade Inspections

    Oregon agreement to procure insurance, anti-indemnity statute, and self-insured retention

    Good Ole Duty to Defend

    Eleventh Circuit Set to Hear Challenge to Florida Law Barring Foreign Citizens From Buying Real Property

    Accessibility Considerations – What Your Company Should Be Aware of in 2021

    Can a Home Builder Disclaim Implied Warranties of Workmanship and Habitability?

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052: The “Transit-Oriented Development Claims Act of 2013.”

    Engineering, Architecture, and Modern Technology – An Interview with Dr. Jakob Strømann-Andersen

    The Sky is Falling! – Or is it? Impacting Lives through Addressing the Fear of Environmental Liabilities

    ICC/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Green Model Code Integrates Existing Standards

    COVID-19 Response: Key Legal Considerations for Event Cancellations

    A New Study: Unexpected Overtime is Predictable and Controllable

    Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

    City Council Authorizes Settlement of Basement Flooding Cases

    Partner Vik Nagpal is Recognized as a Top Lawyer of 2020

    Surplus Lines Carriers Cannot Compel Arbitration in Louisiana

    Indemnification Against Release/“Disposal” of Hazardous Materials

    'Right to Repair' and Fixing Equipment in a Digital Age

    The Requirement to State a “Sum Certain” No Longer a Jurisdictional Bar to Government Contract Claims

    Specification Challenge; Excusable Delay; Type I Differing Site Condition; Superior Knowledge

    Rhode Island Finds Pollution Exclusion Ambiguous, Orders Coverage for Home Heating Oil Leak

    New York Preserves Subrogation Rights

    Best Practices After Receiving Notice of a Construction Claim

    A Loud Boom, But No Serious Injuries in World Trade Center Accident

    Charles Eppolito Appointed Vice-Chair of the PBA Judicial Evaluation Commission and Receives Prestigious “President’s Award”

    Hundreds of Snakes Discovered in Santa Ana Home

    Arezoo Jamshidi Selected to the 2023 San Diego Super Lawyers List

    Eleventh Circuit Finds Professional Services Exclusion Applies to Construction Management Activities

    Deadline for Hurricane Ian Disaster Recovery Applications Announced

    Hurricane Warning: Florida and Southeastern US Companies – It is Time to Activate Your Hurricane Preparedness Plan and Review Key Insurance Deadlines

    Paris ‘Locks of Love’ Overload Bridges, Threatening Structures

    Plaintiff’s Mere Presence in Area Where Asbestos is Present Insufficient to Establish Bystander Exposure

    Factories Boost U.S. Output as Builders Gain Confidence: Economy

    Waiver of Consequential Damages: The Most Important Provision in a Construction Contract

    California Superior Court Overrules Insurer's Demurrer on COVID-19 Claim

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    Congress Addresses Homebuilding Credit Crunch

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Trigger and Allocation

    Balancing Risk and Reward: The Complexities of Stadium Construction Projects

    No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Arkansas Law
    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. Leveraging 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

    Drywall Originator Hopes to Sell in Asia

    October 22, 2013 —
    With all the talk of problems with drywall coming from China, one company wants to send drywall in the other direction. USG introduced its “Adamant Panel Board” (later Sheetrock) in 1917. But while USG has been a leader in the drywall market in North America, only about 20% of its sales are outside North America. USG is partnering with Boral Ltd., an Australian building materials manufacturer. Earlier this year, USG sold manufacturing and distribution of certain products to the German company Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft. Knauf has sold drywall in the United States that was manufactured in China and found to exit corrosive fumes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Suit Limitation Provision Upheld

    March 04, 2019 —
    The policy's one year suit limitation provision was upheld, depriving insureds of benefits under the policy. Oswald v. South Central Mut. Ins. Co., 2018 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1077 (Dec. 24, 2018). The Oswalds' hog barn burned down on June 21, 2016. Arson was a possible cause. The Oswalds were insured under a combination policy issued by North Star Mutual Insurance Company and South Central Mutual Insurance Company. Central provided coverage for basic perils, broad perils, and limited perils, which included fire losses. The Central policy required property claims to be brought within one year after the loss. By endorsement, the North Star policy required suits be brought within two years after the loss. Presumably, the claims was denied, although the decision does not state this. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Judgment Stemming from a Section 998 Offer Without a Written Acceptance Provision Is Void

    March 22, 2021 —
    In Mostafavi Law Group, APC v. Larry Rabineau, APC (B302344, Mar. 3, 2021), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles), addressed an issue of first impression: whether the purported acceptance of a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (“section 998”) offer lacking an acceptance provision gives rise to a valid judgment. The appellate court held that a section 998 offer to compromise (“998 Offer”) without an acceptance provision is invalid and any judgment stemming from it is void. In Mostafavi Law Group, plaintiffs sued defendants for defamation per se, among other claims, which was litigated at-length over several years. Defendants served plaintiffs with a written 998 Offer, offering to settle the action for the sum of $25,000.01. The 998 Offer did not specify the manner in which plaintiffs were to accept the offer. Within the statutory time period for acceptance, plaintiffs’ counsel hand-wrote the following onto the 998 Offer: “Plaintiff Mostafavi Law Group, APC accepts the offer.” That day, plaintiffs also filed a notice of acceptance of the 998 Offer, along with proof thereof, and sent a copy to defendants. The next day, having received the notice of acceptance, defendants advised plaintiffs that they would “draft and send . . . a settlement agreement for . . . signature” before paying the settlement funds. Reprinted courtesy of Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Stevie B. Newton, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com Mr. Newton may be contacted at snewton@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    City of Birmingham Countersues Contractor for Incomplete Work

    March 12, 2014 —
    Back in December of 2013, WVTM News reported that Chris Woods, a contractor, filed a lawsuit against the City of Birmingham, Alabama, demanding $1.5 million for the West Police Precinct and two other projects he had been contracted on. However, “Birmingham claimed Woods was fired for not completing projects on time and other contract breaches.” On March 7th, WVTM News reported that the City of Birmingham has filed a counterclaim against Woods, alleging that he “owes $1.2 million for incomplete work.” The city listed his “inability to meet specific construction deadlines and finish either project on time as factors for his termination.” Woods, however, blamed the city for delays, citing multiple design changes requested by Birmingham. The city’s counterclaim also alleged that “Star Insurance Company, ‘identified major, numerous defects in the work that Woods had performed prior to the termination of the West Precinct Project.’” Read the full story, December 2013 Article... Read the full story, March 2014 Article... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Jersey Supreme Court Ruled Condo Association Can’t Reset Clock on Construction Defect Claim

    September 20, 2017 —
    The New Jersey Law Journal reported that New Jersey Supreme Court “justices reversed an Appellate Division ruling that found three suits filed against contractors by the Palisades at Fort Lee Condominium Association on various dates in March and April 2009 and September 2010 were within the six-year limit because the association received notice of construction defects in the building in an engineer's report issued in June 2007.” The justices stated that the statute of limitations is not reset when property changes hands: "An owner of a building cannot convey greater property rights to a purchaser than the owner possessed. If the building's owner knew or reasonably should have known of construction defects at the time of the sale of the property, the purchaser takes title subject to the original owner's right—and any limitation on that right—to file a claim against the architect and contractors." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Show Must Go On: Navigating Arbitration in the Wake of the COVID-19 Outbreak

    July 20, 2020 —
    The recent COVID-19 outbreak has altered life for all of us, in ways both big and small. Unprecedented restrictions relating to the pandemic have forced individuals across the globe to change the ways in which they live and work. Perhaps not surprisingly, these restrictions have also changed the way we resolve disputes. Just as virtual conferencing has become the “new normal” for family gatherings and social events, it has also become the “new normal” for everything from mediation, to oral argument, to full-blown hearings. To be sure, there are a number of advantages to conducting adversarial proceedings virtually. First and foremost, it results in substantial cost savings for the parties involved. In-person proceedings typically require significant travel expenses, including airline tickets, hotel reservations, and food and beverage stipends. The use of a virtual forum essentially eliminates these expenses, cutting costs dramatically for attorneys, clients, judges, and arbitrators alike. Virtual conferencing also affords the opportunity for increased participation from party representatives living across the country, or even across the world. While demanding work schedules often make it impossible for multiple party representatives to attend a deposition, or even a hearing, in person, virtual proceedings require much less of a time commitment. Because these virtual proceedings require participants to spend less time away from other work-related obligations, party representatives are able to attend proceedings that they may otherwise have had to miss. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Justin K. Fortescue, Zachery B. Roth and Marianne Bradley Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Roth may be contacted at rothz@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    As Evidence Grows, Regions Prepare for Sea Level Rise

    July 02, 2018 —
    Cities, states and regions are taking steps to prepare their buildings, infrastructure and homes for the impacts of climate change as bad news continues to mount about rising sea levels. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pam Radtke Russell, ENR
    Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com

    New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

    July 30, 2014 —
    In National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Turner Construction Co., 986 N.Y.S.2d 74 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014), Turner was the general contractor for a high rise office building constructed in New Jersey for owner GSJC. Turner subcontracted with Permasteelisa for the building’s exterior curtain wall which consisted of granite and glass with an attached network of decorative pipe rails. A segment of the pipe rails fell from the building onto the street. GSJC determined that a significant percentage of the pipe rail connections to the curtain wall did not conform to specifications or were defective. GSJC sued Turner and Permasteelisa in New Jersey state court for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence, seeking damages for the damage to the curtain wall and the danger of additional pipe rail falling in the future. National Union, which had issued an OCIP policy for the project, defended Turner and Permasteelisa under a reservation of rights and then filed a declaratory judgment action in New York state court. The New York trial court entered judgment for National Union. On appeal, the intermediate court of appeals affirmed. As to choice of law, the court stated that “it is undisputed that the law of New Jersey governs this action, which turns on insurance policy interpretation, and that New Jersey and New York law are consistent as to the issues in dispute here.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson, CD Coverage