BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating 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


    The Problem with One Year Warranties

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (09/06/23) – Nonprofit Helping Marginalized Groups, Life Sciences Taking over Office Space, and Housing Affordability Hits New Low

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds Fire Damage Resulted from Single Occurrence

    New York Court Finds No Coverage Owed for Asbestos Losses Because Insured Failed to Prove Material Terms

    The G2G Year in Review: 2021

    Mark Van Wonterghem To Serve as Senior Forensic Consultant in the Sacramento Offices of Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.

    Construction Law Alert: Builder’s Alternative Pre-litigation Procedures Upheld Over Strong Opposition

    Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces New Partners

    No Coverage for Tenant's Breach of Contract Claims

    Future Army Corps Rulings on Streams and Wetlands: Changes and Delays Ahead

    Invest In America Act Offers 494 Billion In Funding to U.S. Infrastructure and Millions of New Jobs

    The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations

    Pre-Covid Construction Contracts Unworkable as Costs Surge, Webuild Says

    Points on Negotiating Construction Claims

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect, Bad Faith Claims

    Ninth Circuit Finds Policy’s Definition of “Policy Period” Fatal to Insurer’s “Related Claims” Argument

    Of Pavement and Pandemic: Liability and Regulatory Hurdles for Taking It Outside

    Eleventh Circuit Finds No “Property Damage” Where Defective Component Failed to Cause Damage to Other Non-Defective Components

    Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

    I.M. Pei, Architect Who Designed Louvre Pyramid, Dies at 102

    Tips for Drafting Construction Contracts

    Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners

    Another (Insurer) Bites The Dust: Virginia District Court Rejects Narrow Reading of Pollution Exclusion

    “But it’s 2021!” Service of Motion to Vacate Via Email Found Insufficient by the Eleventh Circuit

    McCarthy Workers Test Fall-Protection Harnesses Designed to Better Fit Women

    Index Demonstrates Increase in Builders’ Sentiment

    North Carolina Appeals Court Threatens Long-Term Express Warranties

    Court Agrees to Stay Coverage Matter While Underlying State Action is Pending

    Lawsuit Decries Environmental Assessment for Buffalo, NY, Expressway Cap Project

    Construction Defect Risks Shifted to Insurers in 2013

    Mortgage Interest Rates Increase on Newly Built Homes

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

    Would You Trade a Parking Spot for an Extra Bedroom?

    Workers at Two NFL Stadiums Test Positive for COVID-19, But Construction Continues

    COVID-19 and Mutual Responsibility Clauses

    Not Our Territory: 11th Circuit Dismisses Hurricane Damage Appraisal Order for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Hundreds Celebrated the Grand Opening of the Associated Builders and Contractors of Southern California Riverside Construction Training Center

    Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Does Not Allege Property Damage, Barring Coverage

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

    Subcontract Requiring Arbitration Outside of Florida

    New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

    Motion to Dismiss Insureds' Counterclaim on the Basis of Prior Knowledge Denied

    SCOTUS to Weigh Landowners' Damage Claim Against Texas DOT

    Remembering Joseph H. Foster

    Defense Victory in Breach of Fiduciary Action

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2020

    A Few Green Building Notes

    Trump Soho May Abandon Condos to Operate Mainly as Hotel

    Legal Fallout Begins Over Delayed Edmonton Bridges
    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

    What if the "Your Work" Exclusion is Inapplicable? ISO Classification and Construction Defect Claims.

    February 14, 2023 —
    This article was first published by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) on their NAHBNow blog One of the risks faced by a residential builder is that, following completion of construction, the homeowner may assert a claim against the builder for damage to the home caused by an alleged construction defect. One of the ways a builder manages the risk of such construction defect claims is by purchasing commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance. A builder’s CGL policy covers those sums the builder is legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an “occurrence,” that is, damage that is accidental rather than being expected or intended by the builder, so long as the claim does not fall within any of the policy’s several “exclusions” from coverage. When faced with a construction defect lawsuit, our builder clients are often surprised—and dismayed—when their CGL insurer denies coverage and refuses to defend the builder. However, builders shouldn’t take their insurer’s denial of coverage at face value. This article discusses a new argument we recently discovered that has been a game-changer for our builder clients who were denied coverage in construction defect cases. Whether coverage exists always depends on the specific language of the particular CGL policy, and courts generally construe exclusions against insurers. This allows experienced coverage attorneys to, at times, successfully challenge declinations of coverage and, at a minimum, convince insurers to pay for the builder’s defense. A typical CGL policy provides products-completed operations coverage, which is sought by businesses that face potential liability arising out of the products that they have sold or operations that they have completed. Products-completed operations coverage allows builders to obtain many years of coverage for a completed project. Over the years, insurers have added to their policies modifications and exclusions that limit their exposure for claims that fall under that coverage. Exclusion (l) or the “your work” exclusion, will often exclude coverage for a latent defect claim against the builder. A standard “your work” exclusion provides:
    This insurance does not apply to: . . . “[p]roperty damage” to “your work” arising out of it or any part of it and included in the “products-completed operations hazard.”
    This “your work” and similar exclusions are designed to limit coverage for business risks that are within the contractor’s own control; e.g., a claim that the contractor caused damage to the contractor’s own work. These exclusions apply both to ongoing and completed projects, which can leave a builder unprotected from lawsuits for years after a project is completed. However, builders who are classified on the declarations page with Code 91580 Contractors— Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents, may not be subject to the “your work” exclusion. 91580 is a common classification assigned to builders during insurance underwriting. This classification falls into what is referred to as “dagger class” or “plus sign class,” which indicates that Products and/or Completed Operations coverage is included as part of and not separate from the Premises/Operations coverage (emphasis added). It has been noted that dagger” and “plus sign” classifications create confusion because of the seeming contradiction between policy wording and coverage rules.* The CGL policy seems to expressly exclude products and/or completed operations losses for “dagger” or “plus sign” classes. In the definitions section we find the following:
    “Products-completed operations hazard”: . . .b. Does not Include “bodily Injury” or “property damage” arising out of:. . . (3) Products or operations for which the classification, listed In the Declarations or in a policy schedule, states that products- completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit.”
    This apparent exclusionary language, however, must be read in conjunction with the Insurance Services Office’s (ISO) Rule 25.F.1.:
    Rule 25. CLASSIFICATIONS F. Symbols 1. Plus Sign A plus sign when shown in the Premium Base column under General Liability insurance in the Classification Table - means that coverage for Products and/or Completed Operations is included in the Premises/Operations coverage at no additional premium charge. When this situation applies, the classification described in the policy schedule or Declarations must state that: “Products-completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit” to provide Products and/or Completed Operations coverage(s).
    When read together then, the exclusionary wording in the policy definition removes any product or operation loss subject to the “dagger” or “plus sign” classification from the definition of Products Completed Operations Hazard. Under the dagger or plus sign classification of Rule 25, coverage for products and/or operations is included in the premises operations coverage. Consequently, a loss can no longer be defined as a product completed loss, and as a result it is no longer subject to the “your work” exclusion. Recall that the standard “your work” exclusion quoted above excludes coverage for “property damage” to “your work” “arising out of it or any part of it and included in the “products-completed operations hazard”.” Here, we emphasize “and” because the “your work” exclusion applies only to property damage that is also included in the “products-completed operations hazard.” Since property damage claims arising under “plus sign” classifications are expressly excluded from the “products-completed operations hazard” (they are included in the premises/operations coverage) the “your work” exclusion simply does not apply. This means that, if your CGL insurer denies your construction defect claim based on the “your work” exclusion, do what the title of this article suggests: Check your ISO classification! If 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents” is listed on your Declarations page, you may be in luck. This new ISO classification-based coverage argument will likely also apply to other exclusions and endorsements that CGL insurers routinely rely on in denying coverage in construction defect cases. We recently successfully challenged a coverage denial based on the following “prior work” exclusionary endorsement:
    ”This insurance does not apply to ‘your products’ or ‘your work’ completed prior to” a certain date listed in the endorsement. . . “Specifically, this insurance does not apply to. . . “property damage”. . . included in the ‘products-completed operations hazard’ and arising out of. . . ‘your work’ performed by or on behalf of you prior to the date shown above.”
    Again, this endorsement incorporates the “products-completed operations hazard,” which allowed us to successfully argue that the exclusion was inapplicable to a builder classified as a 91580 “Executive Supervisor or Executive Superintendent.” To our knowledge, this new ISO classification-based coverage argument has not yet been addressed by a court. Our recent successes with it have concluded with favorable settlements for our clients. Accordingly, for now, the ISO classification-based argument is a powerful new tool to challenge denials of coverage in construction defect cases where the builder is classified under 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents.” David Humphreys is a Partner at Carson Law Group, PLLC, and has been representing construction contractors, subcontractors, and owners for more than two decades in Mississippi and throughout the Southeast. *See “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean, Chris Boggs - Virtual University | “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean) (independentagent.com) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California’s Fifth Appellate District Declares the “Right to Repair Act” the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    September 03, 2015 —
    August 26, 2015 - The Fifth Appellate District ruled SB800 (California's "Right to Repair Act" [the "Act"]) provides the sole remedy for homeowners in construction defect actions. The court found "no other cause of action is allowed to recover for repair of the defect itself or for repair of any damage caused by the defect." (McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court of California (Aug. 26, 2015, No. F069370) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2015 WL 5029324].) The court issued a blistering criticism of the Fourth Appellate District's prior opinion in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, which severely limited the reach of the Act to actions not involving property damage and allowing property damage claims to proceed freely under common law without any constraints posed by the Act. In McMillin, the court reviewed whether a homeowner was required to follow the Act's prelitigation procedures even after dismissing a cause of action arising under the Act. In deciding the issue, the court quoted directly from the first line of the Act (Civ. Code § 896) and found "[i]n any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction … , the claimant's claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of" the standards set out in the Act. The court recognized the statutory exceptions to this rule, such as for claims arising under contract, or any action for fraud, personal injuries, or statutory violations. (Civ. Code., § 943.) However, this result directly conflicts with the Fourth Appellate District's decision in Liberty Mutual, which found homeowners can circumvent the entire Act by simply alleging property damage claims. McMillin rejects Liberty Mutual's "reasoning and outcome" as being inconsistent with the express language of the Act. McMillin found that Liberty Mutual failed to fully analyze the statutory language of the Act, which (on its face) limits any action for construction deficiencies to the requirements of the Act. McMillin concludes the Legislature intended that all construction defect actions (for new residences sold on or after January 1, 2003), are subject to the requirements of the Act, including the prelitigation procedures, regardless of whether a complaint expressly alleges a cause of action under the Act or not. McMillin is a great victory for homebuilders, but battle lines are now clearly drawn between the two appellate districts. McMillin directly conflicts with Liberty Mutual, and because of this conflict, the issue will need to be resolved by the California Supreme Court. Until such review is granted, the conflict will remain and trial courts will likely continue to conflate the issue. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stephen A. Sunseri, Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLP
    Mr. Sunseri may be contacted at ssunseri@gdandb.com

    CA Senate Report States Caltrans ‘Gagged and Banished’ its Critics

    August 06, 2014 —
    According to the Sacramento Bee, the California Senate’s latest report said that “at least nine top experts for the new $6.5 billion San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge” were “’gagged and banished’” after complaining “about substandard work by the Shanghai, China, firm that built much of the span.” According to the report, reported by the Sacramento Bee, Tony Anziano, Caltrans’ chief executive of the project, “removed or demoted quality-assurance and fabrication engineers who tried to force the contractor to fix cracked roadway welds.” The report did not evaluate the bridge’s quality or safety, however, it “called for greater openness in large construction projects, a review of the weld problems by independent experts, and an investigation of allegations that engineering decisions were made by non-engineers.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The OFCCP’s November 2019 Updated Technical Assistance Guide: What Every Federal Construction Contractor Should Know

    March 23, 2020 —
    The Department of Labor (“DOL”) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) issued its 148-page Updated Construction Contractor Technical Assistance Guide (the “Guide”) on November 13, 2019. A complete copy of the Guide can be found here, but the below provides a summary of what every Federal Construction Contractor should know regarding the OFCCP’s November 2019 update to its prior 2006 publication. The DOL has identified the Guide as a “self-assessment tool” to assist contractors in meeting “their legal requirements and responsibilities for equal employment opportunity by preventing violations before they occur.” However, the Guide does not create or impose new requirements for Federal Construction Contractors. Instead, the Guide provides an overview of anti-discrimination and affirmative action requirements and obligations under existing laws and regulations, and suggests best practices and guidance. Specifically, the Guide provides:
    • A concise summary of Federal Construction Contractors’ legal obligations under the three main laws enforced by the OFCCP: Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974;
    • A detailed explanation of requirements for written Affirmative Action Plans;
    • A clear schedule of Standard Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Construction Contract Specifications;
    • A reorganized recap of the sixteen affirmative action steps Federal Construction Contractors are required to implement in good-faith; and
    • A user-friendly roadmap of what to expect during an OFCCP audit, including a discussion of record keeping requirements.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah K. Carpenter, Smith Currie
    Ms. Carpenter may be contacted at skcarpenter@smithcurrie.com

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

    July 28, 2018 —
    Unlike other Terms, only a handful of cases addressed administrative and environmental law issues in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term. However, the next Term of the Court promises to be more active in these areas.
    • On January 22, 2018, the Court issued a unanimous opinion in the Clean Water Act (CWA) case, Nat’l Assoc. of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Defense, holding that the plain language of the CWA requires the appeal of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) redefinition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS Rule) must be heard first in the federal district courts. Whereas all appeals of most EPA CWA effluent limitation rules must be heard in the federal Courts of Appeals, Congress chose not to do this with respect to this definitional rule. The Court points out that reviews in the Courts of Appeals must take place within 120 days of the rule’s promulgation, but any review of a rule in the federal district court must take place within 6 years of the date the claim accrues.
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Pierce may be contacted at amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    San Francisco House that Collapsed Not Built to Plan

    February 14, 2014 —
    Last December, a San Francisco, California “developer’s Twin Peaks house collapsed and slid down a hill during renovations.” The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the house “was being supported by three reinforcing towers, rather than the nine required under its approved plans, according to documents provided to city building inspectors.” According to a report by Department of Building Inspection chief Tom Hui, developer Mel Murphy "’failed to follow and implement the approved plans and the sequence of construction’ in his permit,” as quoted by The San Francisco Chronicle. The report also stated that the work “was not independently inspected as required” though this is “vehemently disputed by Murphy.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    July 11, 2011 —

    A new law in South Carolina, H 3375, fixes a loophole in that state’s statute of repose. State law puts a cap of eight years on construction defects, but the 2008 law that set that limit had a loophole that would allow for construction defect claims to start thirteen years after construction. The law also provides a cap on punitive damages.

    The measure was backed by the Carolinas Association of General Contractors. Their spokesperson said that the legislation “increases our state’s ability to be economically competitive and helps protect our members from frivolous lawsuits.”

    Read the full story…

    Read South Carolina H 3375…

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

    Nevada HOA Criminal Investigation Moving Slowly

    January 22, 2014 —
    Six years have passed since the FBI started investigating “allegations of the sweeping scheme to take over valley homeowners associations” in Nevada, according to Jeff German writing for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, however, “the public still doesn’t have the full story of how the scheme unfolded.” Defendants who plead guilty are still awaiting sentencing and no trial has been set for “former construction company boss Leon Benzer, the accused mastermind of the scheme” despite that he and ten others have already been indicted. The trial had been set for March, however, defense lawyers stated “they were overwhelmed by the massive amount of evidence and won’t be prepared for trial until well into 2015.” Benzer, Nancy Quon (late construction defect attorney), and others allegedly “funneled more than $8 million through secret bank accounts to land the lucrative legal and construction defect contracts from the homeowners associations,” according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Quon committed suicide in 2012, and therefore was never charged in the case. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of