BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expert
    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


    Kushners Abandon Property Bid as Pressures Mount Over Conflicts

    Addressing Safety on the Construction Site

    Fatal Crane Collapse in Seattle Prompts Questions About Disassembly Procedures

    A Court-Side Seat: A Poultry Defense, a Houston Highway and a CERCLA Consent Decree that Won’t Budge

    Sometimes, Being too Cute with Pleading Allegations is Unnecessary

    Appellate Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

    Denial of Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens Does Not Automatically Create Basis for Certiorari Relief

    Depreciation of Labor in Calculating Actual Cash Value Against Public Policy

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    A New Lawsuit Might Change the Real Estate Industry Forever

    S&P 500 Little Changed on Home Sales Amid Quarterly Rally

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports CDCCF Charity at 2014 WCC Seminar

    Decaying U.S. Roads Attract Funds From KKR to DoubleLine

    Limitations on the Ability to Withdraw and De-Annex Property from a Common Interest Community

    Price Escalation Impacts

    Under Colorado House Bill 17-1279, HOA Boards Now Must Get Members’ Informed Consent Before Bringing A Construction Defect Action

    Court of Appeal Holds Only “Named Insureds” May Sue for Bad Faith Under California FAIR Plan Policy

    Be Wary of Construction Defects when Joining a Community Association

    Reasonableness of Denial of Requests for Admission Based Upon Expert’s Opinions Depends On Factors Within Party’s Understanding

    M&A Representation and Warranty Insurance Considerations in the Wake of the Coronavirus Pandemic

    Glendale City Council Approves Tohono O’odham Nation Casino

    London Office Builders Aren’t Scared of Brexit Anymore

    What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

    Differing Site Conditions Produce Differing Challenges

    AB5 Construction Exemption – A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5’s Three-Part Test

    Court of Appeals Issues Decision Regarding Second-Tier Subcontractors and Pre-Lien Notice

    Flow-Down Clauses Can Drown Your Project

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit with Additional Million

    World’s Biggest Crane Lifts Huge Steel Ring at U.K. Nuclear Site

    Google’s Floating Mystery Boxes Solved?

    Novation Agreements Under Federal Contracts

    Bad Welds Doom Art Installation at Central Park

    Constructing a New American Dream

    Canada’s Largest Homebuilder Sets U.S. Growth Plan

    Florida Insurance Legislation Alert - Part I

    Federal District Court Finds Coverage Barred Because of Lack of Allegations of Damage During the Policy Period and Because of Late Notice

    Sellers' Alleged Misrepresentation Does Not Amount To An Occurrence

    Buy Clean California Act Takes Effect on July 1, 2022

    Sanctions of $1.6 Million Plus Imposed on Contractor for Fabricating Evidence

    Insurance Policy’s “No Voluntary Payment” Clauses Lose Some Bite in Colorado

    California Supreme Court Protects California Policyholders for Intentional Acts of Employees

    Homebuilding in Las Vegas Slows but Doesn’t Fall

    Medical Center Builder Sues Contracting Agent, Citing Costly Delays

    The Cheap and Easy Climate Fix That Can Cool the Planet Fast

    Managing Infrastructure Projects with Infrakit – Interview with Teemu Kivimäki

    Do Not Forfeit Coverage Under Your Property Insurance Policy

    Why You May Not Want a Mandatory Mediation Clause in Your Construction Contract

    Another Reason to Love Construction Mediation (Read: Why Mediation Works)

    Got Licensing Questions? CSLB Licensing Workshop November 17th and December 15th

    California Precludes Surety from Asserting Pay-When-Paid Provision as Defense to Payment Bond Claim
    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

    Automated Weather Insurance Could Offer Help in an Increasingly Hot World

    July 10, 2023 —
    Carlos José Báez experienced the full brunt of Hurricane Maria when it made landfall in Puerto Rico as a catastrophic storm in 2017. The auto paint shop owner, who lives in Aguas Buenas, Puerto Rico, saw his home badly damaged by Maria’s ferocious winds and rain. Despite submitting claims to his homeowner’s insurance policy for over $25,000, Báez ultimately received a payout of $11,000. “We had a lot of property damage and insurance, but they didn’t want to pay,” Báez said in an interview in Spanish. More than $1.6 billion in insurance claims remained unresolved more than two years after Maria while others were denied completely. The latter happened to Jonathan González’s mother, who waited nearly a year for an adjuster to come take photos of water damage and a broken wheelchair ramp only for the claim to be denied six months later. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Ma, Bloomberg

    Landlords Challenge U.S. Eviction Ban and Continue to Oust Renters

    October 25, 2020 —
    In September, the Trump administration announced a national moratorium on evictions, via an order by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention aimed at reducing the spread of coronavirus. The four-month temporary suspension applies to any tenant who can’t make rent due to economic conditions and who presents a written declaration about their circumstances to their landlord. But the CDC ban now faces legal challenges on multiple fronts, even as landlords continue to routinely file evictions for nonpayment of rent — the very outcome that the order was designed to prevent. On Oct. 20, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia heard the first case against the moratorium, Richard Lee Brown, et al. v. Secretary Alex Azar, et al.. That challenge, brought by a nonprofit called the New Civil Liberties Alliance, has been joined by the National Apartment Association, which represents some 85,000 landlords responsible for 10 million rental units. Lawyers and scholars working on behalf of plaintiffs in the cases say that the CDC lacks the constitutional authority to enact a policy affecting rents. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kriston Capps, Bloomberg

    Travelers v. Larimer County and the Concept of Covered Cause of Loss

    May 10, 2013 —
    Travelers Indemnity Company (“Travelers”) recently won a decision against Larimer County regarding a claim for damage caused to the roofs of several buildings at the County Fairgrounds. Travelers Indemnity Company v. Board of County Commissioners for Larimer County, Slip Copy, 2013 WL 238865, p. 1 (10th Cir. 2013). Larimer County alleged, in district court, that snowstorms and the weight of the snow build-up caused damage to the roof structures. Id. After the district court found for Travelers on a motion for summary judgment, Larimer County appealed the ruling, claiming that Traveler’s was obligated under the insurance policy to pay for repair costs to portions of the roofing structure. Id. The underlying claim for repairs originates with several snowstorms that caused damage to several buildings on the County Fairgrounds. The damage claimed was widespread to the roof structures, evidenced by rolling and buckling purlins (horizontal beams running along the length of the roof, resting upon the principal rafters at right angles and supporting the ordinary rafters). Travelers denied the claim based on its own investigation which concluded the damage was caused by design and construction defects, and therefore excluded from coverage under the insurance policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
    Mr. Iandiorio can be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

    Insurance Companies Score Win at Supreme Court

    December 26, 2022 —
    In 2011, the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) contracted with Seattle Tunnel Partners, a joint venture of Dragados USA and Tutor Perini (“STP”) to construct a tunnel (“SR 99 Tunnel”) to replace the dilapidated Alaska Way Viaduct. STP obtained a builder’s “all-risk” insurance policy (“Policy”) from Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC and several other insurers (collectively, the “Insurers”) which insured against damage to both the project and the tunnel boring machine popularly known as Big Bertha (“Bertha”). Bertha began excavating in July 2013 but broke down a few months later when the machine stopped working. Work did not resume on the project until December 2015. WSDOT and STP tendered insurance claims for the losses associated with the delays and breakdown of Bertha but the Insurers denied coverage. Thereafter, WSDOT and STP sued.  The Insurers moved the trial court for partial summary judgment to resolve some, but not all, of the coverage disputes. In a unanimous decision, the Washington State Supreme Court affirmed the trial court and Court of Appeals, and held that insurance companies do not have to reimburse WSDOT and STP for costs accrued during a two-year Project delay, under certain provisions of the insurance policies. Reprinted courtesy of Mason Fletcher, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC and Ryan Sternoff, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Mr. Sternoff may be contacted at ryan.sternoff@acslawyers.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    CDJ’s #7 Topic of the Year: The Las Vegas Harmon Hotel Year-Long Demolition & Trial Begins

    December 31, 2014 —
    The 26-story tower in MGM’s $9 billion Las Vegas, Nevada CityCenter project, is being demolished piece by piece after a structural engineer reported that an earthquake of 7.7 could bring it down. While litigation began as early as 2010, the trial didn’t begin until October of 2014, and expectation is it will last through almost all of 2015 as well, according to Carri Geer Thevenot of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Treasures Inside Notre Dame Cathedral

    May 06, 2019 —
    Paris’s Notre Dame cathedral took more than 200 years to build and just a few hours to burn. The structure’s construction began in the 12th century; six hundred years later, it was rehabilitated by Napoleon in the 1800s. In the interim, kings were crowned underneath its monumental stained glass windows even as the city around it rose, fell, and rose again. It has served as the setting of numerous historical events, including Napoleon’s coronation in 1804. In August 1944, a special mass in the cathedral attended by General Charles de Gaulle was held to celebrate the liberation of Paris from the Nazis. The spire contained relics of Saint Denis and Saint Genevieve, the patron saints of Paris, according to Laurent Ferri, a curator in the Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections at Cornell University and former conservateur du patrimoine at the French National Archives. The archbishop of Paris placed the relics at the summit of the church in 1935 to protect the building. “They are now likely reduced to ashes,” Ferri says. Reprinted courtesy of James Tarmy, Bloomberg and Eugene Reznik, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    October 28, 2011 —

    The Eleventh District of the US Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Nix v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company. In this case, the Nixes filed a claim after a portion of the retaining wall in their home collapsed and their basement flooded. State Farm denied the claim “on the ground that the policy excluded coverage for collapses caused by defects in construction and for damage caused by groundwater.”

    The court reviewed the Nixes’ policy and found that State Farm’s statement did specifically exclude both of these items. In reviewing the lower court’s ruling, the appeals court noted that State Farm’s expert witness, Mark Voll, determined that the retaining wall “lacked reinforcing steel, as required by a local building code, and could not withstand the pressure created by groundwater that had accumulated during a heavy rainfall.” Additionally, a french drain had been covered with clay soil and so had failed to disperse the groundwater.

    The Nixes argued that the flooding was due to a main line water pipe, but their opinions were those of Terry Nix and the contractor who made temporary repairs to the wall. “Those opinions were not admissible as lay testimony. Neither Nix nor the contractor witnessed the wall collapse or had personal knowledge about the construction of the Nixes’ home.”

    The lower court granted a summary judgment to State Farm which has been upheld by the appeals court.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

    September 10, 2014 —
    Great news for California subcontractors and suppliers! “Type I” Indemnity provisions in California construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013 are not enforceable. This change in the law prevents owners and general contractors from shifting enormous exposure and costs of litigation downstream to the little guy, namely subcontractors and suppliers. In October 2011, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 474 into law, which represented a major legislative victory for subcontractors and suppliers. The new law also imposed exacting limitations on contractors that attempt to require their subcontractors and suppliers to cover their defense fees and costs in litigation. New Law Prevents Indemnity or Cost of Defense for Active Negligence Under a "Type I" indemnity provision, the downstream subcontractor agrees to indemnify the owner or contractor, even against liability caused by the upstream owner/contractor's own "active negligence." A “Type I” indemnity provision in general contractors’ subcontracts often require their subcontractors to defend and indemnify them from liability regardless of whether the general contractor is partially at fault. Subcontractors and suppliers historically have complained that they have little bargaining power when entering into these contracts and these types of provisions can result in ruinous liability for those in the construction industry that are most vulnerable-subcontractors and suppliers. Before this change, the law allowed a general contractor who is 99 percent at fault for an injury or damage to shift the entire risk to a subcontractor who is only one percent at-fault or a subcontractor who is not at fault at all, but tangentially involved in the claim. Subcontractors and suppliers joined forces and lobbied the legislature. The legislature and Governor Brown agreed. Under the new law, such "Type I" indemnity provisions will no longer be enforceable. SB 474 adds Civil Code section 2782.05 that precludes indemnity where the party to be indemnified is "actively negligent" and makes void and unenforceable these types of clauses. Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of