BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management 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


    Intentionally Set Atlanta Interstate Fire Closes Artery Until June

    Jury Finds Broker Liable for Policyholder’s Insufficient Business Interruption Limits

    Free Texas MCLE Seminar at BHA Houston June 13th

    Homebuilding Down in North Dakota

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

    Federal Judge Refuses to Limit Coverage and Moves Forward with Policyholder’s Claims Against Insurer and Broker

    New York Condominium Association Files Construction Defect Suit

    Is It Time to Get Rid of Retainage?

    Competition to Design Washington D.C.’s 11th Street Bridge Park

    Out of Eastern Europe, a Window Into the Post-Pandemic Office

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Remands Bad Faith Claim Against Title Insurer

    The Registered Agent Advantage

    17 Snell & Wilmer Attorneys Ranked In The 2019 Legal Elite Edition Of Nevada Business Magazine

    No Interlocutory Appeals of "Garden-Variety" Contract Disputes

    We've Surveyed Video Conferencing Models to See Who Fits the CCPA Bill: Here's What We Found

    California Bullet Train Clears Federal Environmental Approval

    Connecticut Court Finds Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Enforceable

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    Federal Contractors Should Request Debriefings As A Matter Of Course

    No Coverage for Defects in Subcontrator's Own Work

    Sixth Circuit Affirms Liability Insurer's Broad Duty to Defend and Binds Insurer to Judgment Against Landlord

    Protect Against Design Errors With Owners Protective Professional Indemnity Coverage

    Construction Defects Survey Results Show that Warranty Laws Should be Strengthened for Homeowners & Condominium Associations

    10 Safety Tips for General Contractors

    Time to Reform Construction Defect Law in Nevada

    Three Steps to a Safer Jobsite

    Minnesota Senate Office Building Called Unconstitutional

    Collapse Claim Dismissed

    Wendel Rosen Construction Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Suing the Lowest Bidder on Public Construction Projects

    Crews Tested By Rocky Ground, Utility Challenges

    No Trial Credit in NJ Appellate Decision for Non-Settling Successive Tortfeasors – Must Demonstrate Proof of Initial Tortfeasor Negligence and Proximate Cause

    N.J. Appellate Court Confirms that AIA Construction Contract Bars Insurer's Subrogation Claim

    School’s Lawsuit over Defective Field Construction Delayed

    Notes from the Nordic Smart Building Convention

    Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences as Affirmative Defense

    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

    Disrupt a Broken Industry—The Industrial Construction Sandbox

    Hunton Insurance Coverage Group Ranked in National Tier 1 by US News & World Report

    Can an Architect, Hired by an Owner, Be Sued by the General Contractor?

    A Word to the Wise: The AIA Revised Contract Documents Could Lead to New and Unanticipated Risks - Part II

    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

    Blackouts Require a New Look at Backup Power

    Your “Independent Contractor” Clause Just Got a Little Less Relevant

    President Trump Issued Two New EOs on Energy Infrastructure and Federal Energy Policy

    Coffee Beans, Mars and the 50 States: Civil Code 1542 Waivers and Latent Defects

    Make Sure to Properly Perfect and Preserve Construction Lien Rights

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds That CASPA Does Not Allow For Individual Claims Against A Property Owner’s Principals Or Shareholders

    New York Developers Facing Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement
    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 5,500 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

    Business Interruption Claim Upheld

    April 01, 2015 —
    A business interruption claim survived an appeal after it was determined the claim was satisfactorily presented to the trial court. Citadel Broadcasting Corp. v. Axis U.S. Ins. Co., 2015 La. App. LEXIS 274 (La. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2015). When Hurricane Katrina hit on August 29, 2005, the insured owned three radio stations that broadcast in and around New Orleans. All three stations suffered property damage and were off the air for varying periods of time. The insured's policy with Axis covered both physical damage and business interruption (BI) losses. The policy also insured contingent business interruption income (CBI). Both ordinary BI and CBI losses were covered under a 365 day extended period of indemnity (EPI). 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

    Water Damage: Construction’s Often Unnoticed Threat

    November 02, 2020 —
    Fire damage to commercial buildings might get headlines, but water damage, whether to projects under construction or completed buildings, delivers massive financial blows to owners, developers and contractors. The impact is massive, reaching many billions of dollars per year. One water leak on the 19th floor at a construction site of a high-end apartment building in New York City resulted in $30 million in property damage and millions in delayed delivery penalties. Imagine this all-too-typical scenario: A 20-story building has thousands of pipe connections and many tens of thousands throughout the entire building. It only takes one of those joints failing, perhaps due to human oversight. Early on a Saturday morning when no one is onsite, one of the connections inside a wall begins to leak, slowly at first. In a couple hours the connection fails completely, sending a cascade of water into the building. The site is located next to a highway, so the security guards don’t hear the water flowing. The leak goes undetected until crews come back onsite on Monday morning. By that point, lower levels of the building have been inundated with thousands of gallons of water that has destroyed construction material, carpeting and electrical switchgear. It’s flowed into the elevator pits and mechanical room. Reprinted courtesy of Yaron Dycian, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Dycian may be contacted at yaron@wint.ai

    A Primer on Suspension and Debarment for Federal Construction Projects

    August 10, 2020 —
    We’ve all heard the expression that those who deal with the government must turn square corners. This is because the government has a broad array of tools at its disposal to motivate, coax and cajole contractors and federal grant recipients to play by the rules. Those tools include harsh measures such as criminal prosecution and civil false claims act enforcement on the one hand and poor CPARS ratings on the other. A seemingly less severe administrative option available to the government is suspension and debarment. However, any entity that has been suspended or debarred knows that these measures can prove harsh and disruptive. While the numbers of suspensions and debarments have declined from the all-time high in 2011, there is still significant activity. In its FY 2018 report, the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee reported 2444 referrals, 480 suspensions, 1542 proposed debarments and 1334 debarments. The number of referrals for suspension and debarment in FY 2018 is almost exactly the same as the number of GAO bid protests filed that year. WHAT IS SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT? Suspension and debarment are the government’s tools to avoid entities it views as a high risk for poor performance, fraud, waste and abuse. Suspension and debarment preclude a business entity or individual from contracting with the government or from receiving grants, loans, loan guarantees or other forms of assistance from the government. A suspension is a temporary exclusion when the government determines immediate action is necessary pending the completion of an investigation or legal proceeding. A debarment is an exclusion for a defined, reasonable period of time—often three years. Reprinted courtesy of Hal J. Perloff, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Perloff may be contacted at hal.perloff@huschblackwell.com

    Remodel Leaves Guitarist’s Home Leaky and Moldy

    October 03, 2013 —
    The entertainment site TMZ reports that Eddie Van Halen is suing the contractor who remodeled his home. Mr. Van Halen claims that the contractor’s poor workmanship lead to water intrusion. According to the lawsuit, the roof and chimney leaked, and gutters and flashing were poorly installed. As a result, parts of the home suffered from mold damage. The lawsuit claims that Mr. Val Halen spent more than $1 million to repair his home after the remodel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Senate Bill 15-091 Passes Out of the Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee

    March 19, 2015 —
    As previously reported, Senator Scott's SB 91, as originally introduced, would have reduced Colorado's statute of repose for construction defect actions from eight years to four years. Yesterday, the Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee heard Senate Bill 91 and, before passing the bill on a party line vote sending it back to the full Senate for consideration, made two substantive amendments. By one amendment, the Committee excluded any multi-family developments. The second amendment was to reduce the statute of repose from six years, currently on the books, to five years plus one more if the defect becomes manifest in the fifth year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements

    June 15, 2017 —
    In The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority, et al., No. 2016-00096, the New York Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision with regard to the meaning of “caused, in whole or in part, by” in the additional insured context. In a split decision, the court rejected Burlington Insurance Company’s argument that the language implied a “negligence” standard, but held that coverage was provided to the additional insured only where the named insured’s acts or omissions were the proximate cause of the injury:
    While we [the majority] agree with the dissent that interpreting the phrases differently does not compel the conclusion that the endorsement incorporates a negligence requirement, it does compel us to interpret ‘caused, in whole or in part’ to mean more than ‘but for’ causation. That interpretation, coupled with the endorsement’s application to acts or omissions that result in liability, supports our conclusion that proximate cause is required here.[1]
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey Miller, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Miller may be contacted at gjm@sdvlaw.com

    Florida Property Bill Passes Economic Affairs Committee with Amendments

    April 14, 2011 —

    The Florida Property Bill (HBB 803) was passed by the Economic Affairs Committee by a vote of 11-7, according to Property Casualty 360, after adopting nine new amendments. The additions to the bill included limiting notice of claims to a set number of years, extending the statute of limitation on property claims from five years to six years, among others.

    HB 803 and SB 408, the Senate companion bill, focus primarily on residential property insurance. They make changes to the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, while also promoting increased notification of policy changes to policyholders. Sections of the bills provide minor fixes such as renaming Citizens Property Insurance Corporation to Taxpayer-Funded Property Insurance Corporation. However, other sections of the bills contain more significant policy changes such as sinkhole coverage and hurricane claims.

    The bills’ intent, according to the SunSentinel.com, is to reduce fraudulent claims and to bring new insurers into the insurance market. However, SunSentinel.com also reports that the bills may drastically increase property insurance premiums.

    Read the full Property Casualty 360 article...

    Read the full Sun Sentinel article...

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Eleventh Circuit Upholds Coverage for Environmental Damage from Sewage, Concluding It is Not a “Pollutant”

    May 24, 2018 —
    On April 20, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed an Alabama district court decision finding that an “absolute pollution exclusion” did not bar coverage for environmental property damage and injuries from a sewage leak. Evanston Ins. Co. v. J&J Cable Constr., LLC, No. 17-11188, 2018 WL 1887459, (11th Cir. Apr. 20, 2018). J&J Cable was hired to install underground electrical conduit in a subdivision when it struck and broke the sewer pipe to two homes. As a result, sewage backed up into the homes causing property damage and personal injuries. The commercial general liability policy at issue contained an “absolute pollution exclusion,” which sought to bar coverage for “bodily injury” and “property damage” arising out of the actual, alleged, or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste.” The insurer relied on an earlier Alabama federal district court decision, which precluded coverage for liability from lead paint exposure, concluding that lead was a pollutant under a similar exclusion. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, recognizing that insurance is a state law issue and opting instead to rely on binding state court precedent. The Eleventh Circuit, therefore, found that the decision in U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Armstrong, 479 So. 2d 1164 (Ala. 1985), by the state’s highest court, the Alabama Supreme Court, governed. That case made a distinction between industrial waste and residential sewage. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit found that the “absolute pollution exclusion” did not preclude coverage for liability for injuries caused by sewage. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters , Hunton Andrews Kurth and Alexander D. Russo , Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters  may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Russo  may be contacted at arusso@huntonak.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of