BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut office building Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut Medical building Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut production housing Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut industrial building Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut condominiums Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut casino resort Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut custom home Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut housing Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut condominium Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut parking structure Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut retail construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut institutional building Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut custom homes Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut tract home Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultant
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Connecticut Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Building Consultant 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 Consultant Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders & Remo Assn of Fairfield Co
    Local # 0780
    433 Meadow St
    Fairfield, CT 06824

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Eastern Connecticut
    Local # 0740
    20 Hartford Rd Suite 18
    Salem, CT 06420

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of New Haven Co
    Local # 0720
    2189 Silas Deane Highway
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Hartford Cty Inc
    Local # 0755
    2189 Silas Deane Hwy
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of NW Connecticut
    Local # 0710
    110 Brook St
    Torrington, CT 06790

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Connecticut (State)
    Local # 0700
    3 Regency Dr Ste 204
    Bloomfield, CT 06002

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Consultant 10/ 10


    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Fairfield Connecticut


    Wisconsin Court of Appeals Re-affirms American Girl To Find Coverage for Damage Caused by Subcontractors

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

    The Importance of the Subcontractor Exception to the “Your Work” Exclusion

    Connecticut District Court to Review Proposed Class Action in Defective Concrete Suit

    Construction Defect Lawsuits May Follow Hawaii Condo Boom

    Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

    A Lien Might Just Save Your Small Construction Business

    2020s Most Read Construction Law Articles

    Litigation Privilege Saves the Day for Mechanic’s Liens

    NYC’s Developers Plow Ahead With Ambitious Plans to Reshape City

    Colorado Court of Appeals Defines “Substantial Completion” for Subcontractors’ Work so as to Shorten the Period of Time in Which They Can Be Sued

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

    Apprentices on Public Works Projects: Sometimes it’s Not What You Do But Who You Do the Work For That Counts

    New York’s Second Department Holds That Carrier Must Pay Judgment Obtained by Plaintiff as Carrier Did Not Meet Burden to Prove Willful Non-Cooperation

    The Impact of the IIJA and Amended Buy American Act on the Construction Industry

    North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage,” Allocation and Exhaustion-Related Issues Arising Out of Benzene-Related Claims

    Can a Contractor be Liable to Second Buyers of Homes for Construction Defects?

    Strategic Communication Considerations for Contractors Regarding COVID-19

    U.K. Construction Unexpectedly Strengthens for a Second Month

    California Posts Nation’s Largest Gain in Construction Jobs

    County Elects Not to Sue Over Construction Defect Claims

    Foundation Differences Across the U.S.

    With VA Mechanic’s Liens Sometimes “Substantial Compliance” is Enough (but don’t count on it) [UPDATE]

    Fifth Circuit Requires Causal Distinction for Ensuing Loss Exception to Faulty Work Exclusion

    New WOTUS Rule

    General Contractors Have Expansive Common Law and Statutory Duties To Provide a Safe Workplace

    eRent: Construction Efficiency Using Principles of the Sharing Economy

    South Caroline Holds Actual Cash Value Can Include Depreciation of Labor Costs

    Apartment Building Damaged by Cable Installer’s Cherry Picker

    Home Building Mergers and Acquisitions 2014 Predictions

    ACEC Research Institute Releases New Engineering Industry Forecast

    NY Estimating Consultant Settles $3.1M Government Project Fraud Case

    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

    New Executive Order: Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All

    Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Denial of Coverage Unsuccessful

    The “Ugly” Property Next Door is Ruining My Property Value

    Seyfarth Shaw’s Construction Group Receives Top Tier Recognition from Legal 500

    Montana Supreme Court Tackles Decade-Old Coverage Dispute Concerning Asbestos Mineworker Claims

    HB 20-1046 - Private Retainage Reform - Postponed Indefinitely

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation

    Being deposed—not just for dictators! Depositions in the construction lawsuit (Law & Order: Hard Hat files Part 5)

    Couple Claims ADA Renovation Lead to Construction Defects

    Lewis Brisbois Listed on Leopard Solutions Top 10 Law Firm Index

    Why Ethiopia’s $5 Billion Dam Has Riled Its Neighbors

    U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Maritime Charters and the Specter of a New Permitting Regime

    Congratulations to Associate Madeline Arcellana on Her Selection as a Top Rank Attorney in Southern Nevada!

    Appellate Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Order Compelling Appraisal

    Condominium Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect

    The Hidden Price of Outdated Damage Prevention Laws: Part I

    Update to Washington State Covid-19 Guidance
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING CONSULTANT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Consultant 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 Consultant News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 49 White and Williams Attorneys

    September 16, 2024 —
    Thirty-eight White and Williams lawyers were recognized in Best Lawyers in America® 2025. 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. In addition, eleven lawyers were recognized as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. This recognition is given to attorneys who are earlier in their careers for outstanding professional excellence in private practice in the United States. The firm is also pleased to announce Best Lawyers® has recognized three attorneys as "Lawyer of the Year” including: Chuck Eppolito, Litigation - Health Care, Philadelphia, who focuses his practice on medical malpractice defense as well as other insurance-related defense; William D. Kennedy, Litigation – Insurance, Philadelphia, who focuses his practice on complex claims of injury and damage arising in both the professional and general liability contexts; and, Michael O. Kassak, Litigation – Insurance, Cherry Hill, who focuses his practice on large complex commercial matters including insurance coverage and healthcare disputes. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    There Are Consequences to Executed Documents Such as the Accord and Satisfaction Defense

    October 01, 2024 —
    A federal government contractor in Jackson Construction Co., Inc. v. U.S., 62 Fed.Cl. 84 (Fed.Cl. 2024) sought delay damages against the government. It lost. The reason for the loss is a crucial reminder that documents parties sign ALWAYS matter. ALWAYS!! In Jackson Construction Co., the contractor’s delay claim was premised on relocating a waterline. The contractor, however, received additional money for relocating the waterline, but no additional time, and this was memorialized in a modification to the contract (i.e., a change order). In executing the modification for the additional work, the contractor did NOT reserve rights for time or money. Indeed, the modification reflected that the monetary adjustment constitutes full compensation for the additional work including delay, namely:
    The contract period of performance remains the same. It is further understood and agreed that this adjustment constitutes compensation in full on behalf of the contractor and his subcontractors and suppliers for all costs and markup directly or indirectly, including extended overhead, attributable to the change order, for all delays related thereto, and for performance of the change within the time frame stated.
    Jackson Construction Co., supra, at 90.
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    “For What It’s Worth”

    October 21, 2024 —
    The legal doctrine of quantum meruit is essentially referring to recovering “for what it’s worth,” incorporating the Latin phrase for “as much as one has deserved.” Quantum meruit recovery occurs when there is no contract between parties for the particular item for which recovery is sought. Hence, quantum meruit recovery is generally a means of last resort to endeavor to make oneself whole. So, it was for a subcontractor seeking nearly $14,000,000 for work it performed on a construction project in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The subcontractor sued on contract as well as quantum meruit/unjust enrichment. The court initially dismissed the quantum meruit/unjust enrichment claims – because there was a contract claim – whereupon the contract claim was dismissed on summary judgment: the subcontractor failed to timely submit change proposals and, consequently, “lost contract remedies available to recover amounts it sought in the change proposals.” Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Update: Amazon Can (Still) Be Liable in Louisiana

    December 31, 2024 —
    On November 25, 2024, in Pickard v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-01448, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215377, the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (District Court) ruled that Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) could be liable for manufacturer-seller liability under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) for a defective product sold by a third-party seller through the “Fulfillment by Amazon” program (FBA). The court also dismissed two tort claims against Amazon as follows: (i) Amazon does not qualify as a “seller” for purposes of non-manufacturer seller liability (because passing title is required for that claim); and (ii) there is insufficient evidence to prove the decedent, Archie Pickard (Pickard), relied on Amazon’s safety practices when purchasing the defective product, precluding a claim for negligent undertaking. Background Pickard died from injuries sustained in a house fire allegedly caused by a defective battery charger he purchased on Amazon. Jisell, a Chinese company and a third-party seller, manufactured and sold the charger. Amazon never took title to the charger but stored it in its warehouse and delivered it to Pickard through the FBA. Pickard’s children filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Amazon alleging three claims: (i) manufacturer-seller liability under the LPLA; and tort-based claims of (ii) non-manufacturer seller liability and (iii) negligent undertaking. After Amazon moved for summary judgment on all claims, the District Court certified questions to the Supreme Court of Louisiana (Supreme Court) seeking guidance as there was minimal guidance regarding the application of products claims to online marketplaces. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

    Damage Caused Not by Superstorm Sandy, But by Faulty Workmanship, Not Covered

    December 10, 2024 —
    The federal district court adopted the Report and Recommendations (R&R) of the magistrate judge, finding there was no coverage for faulty workmanship in replacing a roof for an apartment complex. Burlington Ins. Co. v. PCGNY Corp., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167814 (S.D. N. Y. Sept. 16, 2024). Skyline Restoration was hired by the apartment complex to replace the apartments' roofs. Skyline subcontracted with PCGNY Corporation. The roofs were later damaged during Superstorm Sandy. Defendant Affiliated FM Insurance Company ("Affilliated"), a subrogee of the owner of the apartment complex, sued Skyline for defective, faulty and unworkmanlike removal and replacement of the roofs. Skyline filed a Third-Party Complaint against PCGNY. Plaintiff Burlington Insurance Company filed this coverage action against Skyline, Affiliated, PCGNY and others seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend and/or indemnify PCGNY and/or Skyline, and that it was permitted to withdraw from the defense of PCGNY. Burlington filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion was referred to the magistrate judge who recommended that Burlington be granted a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify PCGNY or Skyline and that it be allowed to withdraw from the defense of PCGNY in the underlying case. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Suffolk Construction Drywall Suits Involve Claim for $3 Million in Court Costs

    November 11, 2024 —
    Suffolk Construction lost a breach-of-contract contract lawsuit in July with a former drywall subcontractor's surety—but the contractor's payout may dramatically increase if the presiding U.S. district court judge in Miami allows the surety to collect $3 million more in requested attorneys' fees and trial costs. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story...

    Staffing Company Not Entitled to Make a Claim Against a Payment Bond and Attorneys’ Fees on State Public Works Payment Bonds

    August 12, 2024 —
    It’s not quite Baskin Robbin’s “31 Flavors” but the panoply of statutory construction payment remedies available to contractors, subcontractor and material suppliers in California, from mechanics liens to stop payment notices to payment bond claims, can be tempting to reach for when you are not paid. However, some flavors are more readily available than others, as a staffing agency discovered in K & S Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. The Western Surety Company, Case Nos. C096705 and C097987 (January 2, 2024). The K & S Staffing Case The California Department of Transportation awarded VSS International, Inc. two public works construction contracts for road maintenance. Each involved an expenditure of over $25,000 and VSSI obtained a payment bond from Western Surety Company. Titan DVBE Inc. was a subcontractor on both projects. For most years, Titan employed its own workers. However, when it learned that its insurance carrier would no longer be offering workers’ compensation insurance in California it switched to K & S Staffing Solutions, Inc. to fulfill its staffing needs. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Newark Trial Team Secures Affirmance of ‘No Cause’ Verdict for Nationwide Housing Manager & Developer

    January 07, 2025 —
    Newark, N.J. (December 30, 2024) - Newark Partner Afsha Noran and Managing Partner Colin Hackett recently obtained a ruling by a New Jersey Appellate Division panel affirming a unanimous "no cause" defense verdict obtained on behalf of a nationwide housing developer and manager. In this case, the plaintiff and her two minor children brought suit against the firm's client. They appealed a unanimous no-cause jury verdict rendered in May 2023 that found the defendants not liable for mold exposure in their apartment. The plaintiffs argued that several trial errors, including improper jury instructions, a confusing verdict sheet, and prejudicial remarks by defense counsel led to an unjust result. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in handling the case. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois