BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction 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


    Supreme Court Rejects “Wholly Groundless” Exception to Question of Arbitrability

    Maryland Legislation Prohibits Condominium Developers from Shortening Statute of Limitations to Defeat Unit Owner Construction Defect Claims

    Replacing Coal Plants with Renewables Is Cheaper 80% of the Time

    Trial Court Abuses Discretion in Appointing Unqualified Umpire for Appraisal

    California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

    Colorado Court Holds No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claim

    Hunton Insurance Team Wins Summary Judgment on Firm’s Own Hurricane Harvey Business Income Loss

    Housing Advocacy Group Moved to Dissolve New Jersey's Council on Affordable Housing

    Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That’s Not the Most Interesting Part

    Taylor Morrison v. Terracon and the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007

    Hake Law Attorneys Join National Law Firm Wilson Elser

    Insurance Litigation Roundup: “Post No Bills!”

    Title II under ADA Applicable to Public Rights-of-Way, Parks and Other Recreation Areas

    Waiver Of Arbitration by Not Submitting Claim to Initial Decision Maker…Really!

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    4 Ways the PRO Act Would Impact the Construction Industry

    How the New Dropped Object Standard Is Changing Jobsite Safety

    A Word to the Wise about Construction Defects

    Californians Swarm Few Listings Cuts to Affordable Homes

    How AB5 has Changed the Employment Landscape

    Gehry-Designed Project Seen Bringing NYC Vibe to L.A.

    2019 Legislative Session

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

    The Heat Is On

    Finding Plaintiff Intentionally Spoliated Evidence, the Northern District of Indiana Imposes Sanction

    Amazon Hits Pause on $2.5B HQ2 Project in Arlington, Va.

    Chambers USA 2021 Recognizes Five Partners and Two Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    Nondelegable Duties

    New California Employment Laws Affect the Construction Industry for 2019

    New California Construction Laws for 2020

    Connecticut’s New False Claims Act Increases Risk to Public Construction Participants

    Maryland Contractor Documents its Illegal Deal and Pays $2.15 Million to Settle Fraud Claims

    Paycheck Protection Flexibility Act Of 2020: What You Need to Know

    Insurer's Refusal to Consider Supplemental Claim Found Improper

    Insurance Broker Stole NY Contractor's Payment, Indictment Alleges

    Enhanced Geothermal Energy Could Be the Next Zero-Carbon Hero

    How to Protect a Construction-Related Invention

    North Carolina Should Protect Undocumented Witnesses to Charlotte Scaffolding Deaths, Unions Say

    At Least 23 Dead as Tornadoes, Severe Storms Ravage South

    Building Resiliency: Withstanding Wildfires and Other Natural Disasters

    President Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order and the Construction Industry

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Honors Four Partners as ‘Lawyers of the Year’

    Builder Survey Focuses on Green Practices of Top 200 Builders

    Client Alert: Catch Me If You Can – Giorgio Is No Gingerbread Man

    More Fun with Indemnity and Construction Contracts!

    Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

    Pinnacle Controls in Verano

    House Passes Bill to Delay EPA Ozone Rule

    Reports of the Death of SB800 are Greatly Exaggerated – The Court of Appeal Revives Mandatory SB800 Procedures
    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. Drawing 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

    Up in Smoke - 5th Circuit Finds No Coverage for Hydrochloric Acid Spill Based on Pollution Exclusion

    October 19, 2020 —
    The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an insurer was not obligated to pay damages associated with a hydrochloric acid spill based on a pollution exclusion in the policy. In Burroughs Diesel, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America,1 a trucking company sued its property insurer, Travelers Indemnity Company of America (“Travelers”) when it refused to pay a claim for a storage tank leak which resulted in over 5,000 gallons of hydrochloric acid entering the property and causing significant damage to buildings, vehicles, tools, and equipment. The acid was initially dispensed in liquid form, but quickly became a cloud that engulfed the property. Travelers denied coverage for the claim based on the pollution exclusion because “acids” fell within the policy’s definition of “pollutants.” The trucking company sued Travelers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing for refusing to pay the claim. The trucking company argued that coverage was warranted because there is an exception to the pollution exclusion if “the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape is itself caused by any of the ‘specified causes of loss,’” and the hydrochloric acid cloud was a form of “smoke,” which is a specified cause of loss covered by the policy. The District Court entered summary judgment in favor of Travelers, finding that the trucking company failed to demonstrate that an exception to the pollution exclusion applied. The trucking company appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com Mr. Jordan may be contacted at dgj@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Breach of an Oral Contract and Unjust Enrichment and Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

    December 23, 2023 —
    In an ideal world, parties would have written contracts. In reality, parties should endeavor to ensure every transaction they enter into is memorialized in a written contract. This should not be disputed. Of course, written contracts are not always the case. Parties enter transactions too often whereby the transaction is not memorialized in a clean written agreement. Rather, it is piecemealing invoices, or texts, or discussions, or proposals and the course of business. A contract can still exist in this context but it is likely an oral contract. Keep in mind if there is a dispute, what you think the oral contract says will invariably be different than what the other party believes the oral contract says. This “he said she said” scenario gets removed, for the most part, with a written contract that memorializes the written terms, conditions, and scope. A recent federal district court opinion dealt with the alleged breach of an oral contract. In Movie Prop Rentals LLC vs. The Kingdom of God Global Church, 2023 WL 8275922 (S.D.Fla. 2023), a dispute concerned the fabrication and installation of a complex, modular stage prop to be used for an event. But here lies the problem. The dispute was based on an oral contract and invoices. The plaintiff, the party that was fabricating the modular stage prop, sued the defendant, the party that ordered the stage prop for the event, for non-payment under various claims. The defendant countersued under various claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Defeating the Ten-Year Statute of Repose For Latent Construction Defects

    January 28, 2015 —
    It is an all-too-common scenario in California construction: Nine and a half years after completion of a major California construction project, immediately before the 10-year “statute of repose” for suing on “latent” construction defects expires, a lawsuit claiming damages for “recently discovered” latent construction defects is filed. The property owner sues the contractor for the alleged defects. The direct contractor sues all its subcontractors for indemnity and defense. The attorneys spontaneously generate. Experts proliferate. Claimed defects are extrapolated. Four or five years later, after a few dozen attorneys earn a small fortune in fees, the insurance companies make payments. Attorneys collect more fees. The owners take what remains. They repair nothing... and buy vacation homes. Perhaps a cynical view, but there are many in the construction defect world who would reach a similar conclusion. The question is: How can you defeat this seemingly inevitable chain of events? Under a case known as Brisbane Lodging L.P. v. Webcor Builders, Inc. 216 Cal.App 4th 1249 (2013) there may be hope. California Code of Civil Procedure sections 337.1 and 337.15 grant a 10-year “statute of repose” for bringing claims for “latent” construction defects. These statutes allow a lawsuit for such claimed defects to be filed in court up until ten years after the project has been completed. Latent defects are generally defined as those which are “not apparent by reasonable inspection” (CCP §337.15(b)). It is extremely common for such claims to be filed immediately before this 10-year deadline expires. When the lawsuit is brought, the cash register begins to ring. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Porter Law Group

    An Occurrence Under Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy Is Based on the Language in the Policy

    April 03, 2023 —
    Builder’s risk insurance coverage is a vital property insurance coverage during the course of construction. Builder’s risk insurance is not a one-size-fits-all product so please make sure you are working with your insurance broker to procure this product that factors in and covers risk associated with the project. Builder’s risk insurance is typically an occurrence-based policy. No different than other occurrence-based policies (such as commercial general liability), a dispute may arise as to the occurrence. This could be due to the triggering of the actual policy during the coverage period or it could be due deductible obligations, as in the case discussed below. When dealing with a builder’s risk insurance policy–again, no different than any policy–the language in the policy matters. Definitions used in the policy to define specific terms matter and, in numerous cases, the ordinary dictionary meanings of terms matter. But it all starts with the policy language. In KT State & Lemon, LLP v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co., 2023 WL 2456499 (M.D.Fla. 2023), a builder’s risk policy provided coverage from April 2018 through the end of November 2019. There was a $50,000 per occurrence deductible for loss caused by or from water damage. An extension to the builder’s risk policy was negotiated through the end of January 2020 that increased this water damage deductible to $250,000 per occurrence. During construction and the testing of the fire suppression (sprinkler) system, leaks started to occur resulting in water damage. Two leaks occurred in September 2019, one leak in October 2019, one leak in November 2019, and two leaks in December 2019 (during the extension and higher water damage deductible period). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    California Court Broadly Interprets Insurance Policy’s “Liability Arising Out of” Language

    December 20, 2017 —
    In McMillin Mgmt. Servs. v. Financial Pacific Ins. Co., Cal.Ct.App. (4th Dist.), Docket No. D069814 (filed 11/14/17), the California Court of Appeal held that the term “liability arising out of,” as used in an ongoing operations endorsement, does not require that the named insured’s liability arise while it is performing work on a construction project. In the McMillin case, the general contractor and developer (McMillin) contracted with various subcontractors, including a concrete subcontractor and stucco subcontractor insured by Lexington Insurance Company. Both subcontractors performed their work at the project prior to the sale of the units. The Lexington policies contained substantively identical additional insured endorsements that provided coverage to McMillin “for liability arising out of your [the named insured subcontractor’s] ongoing operations performed for [McMillin].” Several homeowners filed suit against McMillin, alleging that they had discovered various defective conditions arising out of the construction of their homes, including defects arising out of the work performed by Lexington’s insureds. Lexington argued that there was no potential for coverage in McMillin’s favor under the endorsements because there were no homeowners during the time that the subcontractors’ operations were performing work at the project (the homes closed escrow after the subcontractors had completed their work); thus, McMillin did not have any liability for property damage that took place while the subcontractors’ operations were ongoing. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rose Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Tokyo's Skyline Set to See 45 New Skyscrapers by 2020 Olympics

    April 20, 2017 —
    Tokyo’s skyline is set to welcome 45 new skyscrapers by the time city hosts the Olympics in 2020, as a surge of buildings planned in the early years of Abenomics near completion. Japan’s capital will see nearly 50 percent more new high-rise space in the next three years than it did in the preceding three, Toyokazu Imazeki, chief analyst at office leasing and consulting firm Sanko Estate Co Ltd., said in an interview. He said the increase was fueled by the fiscal expansion and monetary easing under Abe’s economic program, launched after his election in late 2012. “This marks the timing for completion of buildings planned from about 2013 when developers were expecting the economy to expand,” said Imazeki. The increase in building was supported not only by Abe’s expansionary policies but also Japan’s ultra-low interest rates, he said. Reprinted courtesy of Gareth Allan, Bloomberg and Katsuyo Kuwako, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Useful Life: A Valuable Theory for Reducing Damages

    March 29, 2017 —
    The situation is one all too familiar to construction defect litigants. A homeowner contracts with a roofing contractor to install a new roof with a life expectancy of ten years.[1] After only five years, the homeowner brings a claim for construction defects in the roof alleging that the roof requires complete replacement due to water intrusion. The homeowner seeks damages for the full replacement cost of the roof. However, under a “useful life” theory, the homeowner would not be entitled to damages for the full amount of the replacement cost. Instead, the homeowner would be entitled to one-half of the cost of the replacement roof, taking into account the fact that he or she had been deprived of only five, rather than ten, years of use. “Useful life” is best understood as the expected length of time that a newly built construction element can be reasonably anticipated to last, subject to routine maintenance and ordinary wear and tear. The “useful life” theory holds that granting the homeowner damages for the full replacement cost of the roof would result in unjust enrichment to the homeowner, who had contracted for a roof with a ten-year, rather than a fifteen-year, useful life. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brooke E. Beebe, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Ms. Beebe may be contacted at brooke.beebe@csklegal.com

    No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy

    August 24, 2017 —
    The Federal District Court denied two plaintiffs' claims for breach of the policy and for bad faith because they were not insureds under the policy. Tu v. Dongbu Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115200 (N.D. Calif. July 24, 2017). Dongbu, a Hawaii insurance company, issued a two-year policy to Plaintiff Ken Tu for his business. He was the only named insured under the policy. The waste system at Plaintiffs' restaurant failed, causing fumes to impact neighboring tenants and waste to contaminate the underlying soil. Plaintiffs were forced to close the restaurant. A claim was tendered for damage and repair, loss of business income, and other insured losses. Dongbu denied coverage. 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