BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnesses
    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


    No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Arkansas Law

    Colorado’s Abbreviated Legislative Session Offers Builders a Reprieve

    Additional Insured Is Covered Under On-Going Operations Endorsement Despite Subcontractor's Completion of Work

    Nerves of Steel Needed as Firms Face Volatile Prices, Broken Contracts and Price-Gouging

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

    “Bound by the Bond”

    Summary Findings of the Fourth National Climate Assessment

    Developers Celebrate Arizona’s Opportunity Zones

    Court Says No to Additional Lawyer in Las Vegas Fraud Case

    Tenth Circuit Finds Appraisal Can Decide Causation of Loss Under Colorado Law

    Insurer’s Duty to Defend: When is it Triggered? When is it Not?

    A Lack of Sophistication With the Construction Contract Can Play Out In an Ugly Dispute

    Year and a Half Old Las Vegas VA Emergency Room Gets Rebuilt

    Two-Part Series on Condominium Construction Defect Issues

    Judgment for Insurer Reversed Due to Failure to Establish Depreciation

    Safe and Safer

    Facing Manslaughter Charges In Worker's 2021 Trench Collapse Death, Colorado Contractor Who Willfully Ignored Federal Law Surrenders To Police

    Illinois Joins the Pack on Defective Construction as an Occurrence

    Serving the 558 Notice of Construction Defect Letter in Light of the Statute of Repose

    Georgia Super Lawyers Recognized Two Lawyers from Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Group

    First Circuit Rules Excess Insurer Must Provide Coverage for Fuel Spill

    David M. McLain named Law Week Colorado’s 2015 Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants

    The Uncertain Future of the IECC

    Protect Projects From Higher Repair Costs and Property Damage

    Anticipatory Repudiation of a Contract — The Prospective Breach

    Colorado Statutes of Limitations and Repose, A First Step in Construction Defect Litigation

    Insurer in Bad Faith Due to Adjuster's Failure to Keep Abreast of Case Law

    Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Improper Classification Under Davis Bacon Can Be Costly

    Limiting Plaintiffs’ Claims to a Cause of Action for Violation of SB-800

    Not so Fast! How Does Revoking Acceleration of a Note Impact the Statute of Limitations?

    The Future for Tall Buildings Could Be Greener

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052 Dies in Committee

    Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion

    Building Inspector Jailed for Taking Bribes

    $109-Million Renovation Begins on LA's Willowbrook/Rosa Parks Station

    Counter the Rising Number of Occupational Fatalities in Construction

    New Evidence Code Requires Attorney to Obtain Written Acknowledgement that the Confidential Nature of Mediation has been Disclosed to the Client

    US Proposes Energy Efficiency Standards for Federal Buildings

    Genuine Dispute Summary Judgment Reversed for Abuse of Discretion and Trial of Fact Questions About Expert Opinions

    Limiting Services Can Lead to Increased Liability

    Homeowner's Mold Claim Denied Due to Spoilation

    California Supreme Court Holds that Prevailing Wages are Not Required for Mobilization Work, for Now

    Client Alert: Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Status as Undocumented Alien to Prospective Jury Panel Grounds for Mistrial

    Eleventh Circuit Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims

    Legal Battle Kicks Off to Minimize Baltimore Bridge Liabilities

    Kiewit-Turner Stops Work on VA Project—Now What?

    Factor the Factor in Factoring

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    Insured's Experts Excluded, But Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment Denied
    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

    More Charges Anticipated in Las Vegas HOA Scam

    February 28, 2013 —
    With almost forty people already charged in the conspiracy to take over Las Vegas homeowners associations in order to profit from construction defect claims, more charges are likely to come, according to an article in the Las Vegas Review Journal. The article also notes that the trial against Leon Benzer will involve millions of pages of documents. It is alleged that Benzer found straw purchasers for condominiums in order to control homeowner boards. Benzer’s firm, Silver Lining Construction, would then receive contracts to repair construction defects. The Justice Department will be seeking restitution for the victims, which may total $25 million. Four individuals with connections to the conspiracy have died since investigations began. At least three of these deaths were suicides, and included Nancy Quon, who with Benzer are thought to be the main figures in the scam. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Congratulations to San Diego Partner Alex Giannetto and Senior Associate Michael Ibach on Settling a Case 3 Weeks Into a 5-Week Trial!

    April 15, 2024 —
    Partner Alex Giannetto and Senior Associate Michael Ibach of BWB&O’s San Diego office started a trial in San Diego set to last at least five weeks. Plaintiffs alleged causes of action of negligence, trespass and nuisance against BWB&O’s client, arguing the owner/property manager did not properly handle alleged overwatering of the front yard, allegedly resulting in a landslide impacting 8 homes on a City slope in Carlsbad. Cross-Complainant City alleged independent negligence to fix the slope it owned and controlled as well as various indemnity-based causes of action against BWB&O’s client. Plaintiffs claimed over $24 million in damages, while Cross-Complainant placed sole blame for the incident on BWB&O’s client around $6 million. Heading into trial, it was made clear that neither Plaintiffs nor Cross-Complainant would accept anything less than 7-figures to settle BWB&O’s client out of the case. In the first week of trial, BWB&O was able to leverage motions in limine, opening statements, and cross-examinations to secure a dismissal of three of the four causes of action alleged by Plaintiff that were associated with pain & suffering. In the second week of trial, BWB&O secured a dismissal of Cross-Complainant’s negligence cause of action paving the way for a settlement with Plaintiffs. Leveraging the threat of a non-suit when Plaintiffs rested, BWB&O secured resolution of Plaintiffs’ complaint for a fraction of what had previously been sought. Finally, BWB&O was able to secure a dismissal of the remaining indemnity-based causes of action in the cross-complaint and fully extract the client from the matter. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Arizona Court of Appeals Upholds Judgment on behalf of Homeowners against Del Webb Communities for Homes Riddled with Construction Defects

    February 26, 2015 —
    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS UPHOLDS LOWER COURT DECISION APPROVING $13,703,039 JUDGMENT ON BEHALF OF 460 SUN CITY GRAND HOMEOWNERS AGAINST DEL WEBB COMMUNITIES, INC., A SUBSIDIARY OF PULTEGROUP, INC., FOR HOMES RIDDLED WITH CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS --In a separate case, an Arizona Superior Court awards $10,619,640 to another 279 Sun City Grand homeowners who sued Del Webb over construction defects, which Del Webb has appealed-- PHOENIX, Arizona – The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, [on Tuesday] issued a unanimous ruling upholding a lower court decision awarding $13,703,039 to 460 Sun City Grand homeowners who sued developer Del Webb Communities, Inc., a subsidiary of PulteGroup, Inc., for numerous construction defects that severely damaged the plaintiffs’ homes. Sun City Grand is an age-restricted community located in Surprise. In a separate case, an Arizona Superior Court awarded $10,619,640 to another group of 279 Sun City Grand homeowners for multiple construction defects in their homes. Stephen Weber, the managing partner in the Phoenix office of Kasdan Weber Turner LLP, which represents the homeowners, said that the case is based on construction defects that damaged the plaintiffs’ homes and took several years to resolve. The defects include defective windows, poorly installed stucco, expansive soil conditions that resulted in cracking of drywall, and deteriorating concrete foundation systems, among other problems. “Del Webb placed an arbitration clause in the sales contracts and the homeowners honored it. The binding arbitration that includes the owners of 460 homes in Sun City Grand was completed in late 2011 when the arbitration panel unanimously awarded the homeowners $13,703,039. Del Webb then challenged the award in Superior Court and the Superior Court confirmed the award in full,” Weber explained. “Del Webb did not like the Superior Court ruling either and challenged it in the Court of Appeals. And now three justices of the Arizona Court of Appeals have unanimously affirmed the Superior Court order and the arbitration award stands. Now they will have the funds to repair their homes, restore their value, and live in comfort,” Weber said. The $13,703,309 award includes amounts for home repairs, attorney fees, expert fees, court costs and pre-judgment interest. An additional $1,401,236 in post-judgment interest also accrued while the case was on appeal. The other construction defect case that awarded $10,619,640 to homeowners was not covered by binding arbitration. Del Webb has also appealed that case which will now go through the appeals process. That could take two to three years and again the homeowners will have to wait for the final judgment, Weber noted. Ken Kasdan, senior and managing partner of the Kasdan Weber Turner firm and one of the nation’s leading experts on construction defect litigation, said the defects are egregious. “The multiple defects rob them of pride of ownership,” he said. “A home is something that a homeowner wants to be proud of. Unfortunately, defective workmanship and poor construction have caused damage to the homes. Now these homes can be repaired and the homeowners will no longer have to deal with defective windows and cracked slabs. Developers need to understand that arbitration awards are final and binding,” Kasdan noted. The Kasdan Weber Turner law firm has offices in Phoenix, Arizona and in Irvine, California and Walnut Creek, California. The firm represents property owners in major construction defect litigation. For more information on the firm, visit www.kasdancdlaw.com. Stephen Weber may be contacted at (602) 224-7800. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Water Bond Would Authorize $7.5 Billion for California Water Supply Infrastructure Projects

    October 29, 2014 —
    When California voters cast their votes on November 4, 2014 they will decide the fate of a $7.5 billion water bond proposal – Proposition 1 – which would authorize $7.12 billion in new general obligation bonds and reallocate $425 million in previously authorized but unissued bonds for water supply infrastructure projects. Proposition 1 – The Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 If you live in California you know that the state is in the midst of its third straight year of drought. And it’s no ordinary drought. According to some, it’s the severest drought on record, as nearly the entire state experiences “severe” to “exceptional” drought conditions across its counties. The California Water Resources Board has implemented emergency water conservation regulations including hefty fines for those who don’t comply and even Governor Brown has allowed the grounds of the State Capitol to go brown to underscore the severity of the situation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

    Insured's Lack of Knowledge of Tenant's Growing Marijuana Means Coverage Afforded for Fire Loss

    August 17, 2020 —
    The California Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer regarding a claim for fire loss. Mosley v. Pacific Sec. Ins, Co., 2020 Cal. App LEXIS (Cal. Ct. App, May 26, 2020). The Mosleys rented their property to Pedro Lopez. Six months later, the property was damaged by fire. Lopez had tapped a main power line into the attic to power his energy-intensive marijuana growing operation. The illegal power line caused the fire. Pacific Specialty Insurance Company (PSIC) insured the property under an HO-3 Standard Homeowners policy. Paragraph E of the policy provided,
      We do not insure for loss resulting from any manufacturing, product or operation, engaged in:
    1. The growing of plants; or
    2. The manufacture, production, operation or processing of chemical, biological, animal or plant materials.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Insurance Coverage for COVID-19? Two N.J. Courts Allow Litigation to Proceed

    March 06, 2022 —
    Courts across the nation have struggled to determine whether insurance policies that provide coverage for “direct physical loss or damage” insure losses stemming from COVID-19. Many courts have been applying an overly stringent pleading standard, inappropriately granting insurers’ motions to dismiss as a result of the insureds’ purported failure to allege that COVID-19 caused damages covered by their policies or because certain exclusions supposedly barred coverage. However, two New Jersey state courts recently decided these issues in favor of the insureds in well-reasoned opinions that give proper deference to procedural pleading standards and substantive insurance coverage law. A. COVID-19 causes “direct physical loss or damage” In AC Ocean Walk, LLC v. American Guarantee and Liability Ins. Co., the New Jersey Superior Court held that physical alteration to an insured’s property is not a prerequisite to coverage for losses due to COVID-19. The insured, Ocean Casino, sued multiple insurers for COVID-19 losses, alleging that the virus caused Ocean Casino to shut down and suffer a loss of use of its property. Looking at the language of the policies, the court explained that each policy’s insuring agreement substantially read the same:
    “This policy insures against direct physical loss of, or damage caused by, a covered cause of loss to covered property, at an insured location [the casino] … subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions stated in this policy.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Barrese may be contacted at BBarrese@sdvlaw.com

    Sixth Circuit Rejects Claim for Reverse Bad Faith

    June 17, 2015 —
    The Sixth Circuit rejected the insurer's claim for reverse bad faith against its insured who made a fraudulent claim after her home was destroyed by fire. State Auto Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hargis, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7475 (6th Cir. April 23, 2015). The insured's home burned to the ground early one morning. She filed what she would later admit was a fraudulent insurance claim with State Auto for approximately $866,000. State Auto paid in excess of $425,000 before filing an action to declare the policy void. State Farm's investigation eventually led to the insured's admission that she had a friend burn down her house to collect insurance proceeds. An indictment was issued and the insured pled guilty. She was sentenced to a 60-month term and was ordered to pay restitution to State Auto totaling $672,497. 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

    Another Setback for the New Staten Island Courthouse

    January 13, 2014 —
    The new Staten Island Courthouse received another setback when James McDonough filed suit stating unsafe work conditions, according to Frank Donnelly writing for Silive. The completion date for the new multistory, $230 million complex has been rescheduled four times so far. Fifty-eight year old James McDonough, resident of Ridgewood Queens, became injured after a fall down a shaft, and he subsequently “sued the city, state Dormitory Authority, the state Office of Court Administration and various contractors,” Donnelly reported. A total of ten defendants have been named in the suit. According to Silive, the Office of Court Administration, Dormitory Authority and the Law Department would not comment on the pending litigation further except to say that papers have been filed and the case is under review. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of