BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction 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


    OSHA Updates: New Submission Requirements for Injury and Illness Records

    California Court of Appeal Makes Short Work Trial Court Order Preventing Party From Supplementing Experts

    Architectural Firm Disputes Claim of Fault

    Alabama Supreme Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect to Contractor's own Product

    Arizona Rooftop Safety: Is it Adequate or Substandard?

    The “Builder’s Remedy” Looms Over Bay Area Cities

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Causing Property Damage to Insured's Product Only

    Update: Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    Fourth Circuit Holds that a Municipal Stormwater Management Assessment is a Fee and Not a Prohibited Railroad Tax

    Giving Insurance Carrier Prompt Notice of Claim to Avoid “Untimely Notice” Defense

    Consumer Confidence in U.S. Increases More Than Forecast

    Appraisal Ordered After Carrier Finds Loss Even if Cause Disputed

    OSHA/VOSH Roundup

    Several Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2022 Top Lawyers!

    Home Builders Wear Many Hats

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Finds Insured AOAO Not Liable for Securing Inadequate Insurance

    Lennar Profit Tops Estimates as Home Prices Increase

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/24/24) – Long-Term Housing Issues in Hawaii, Underperforming REITs, and Growth in a Subset of the Hotel Sector

    Drywall Originator Hopes to Sell in Asia

    Rulemaking to Modernize, Expand DOI’s “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment Rules Expected Fall 2023

    Appeal of an Attorney Disqualification Order Results in Partial Automatic Stay of Trial Court Proceedings

    Resulting Loss From Faulty Workmanship Covered

    Whose Lease Is It Anyway: Physical Occupancy Not Required in Landlord-Tenant Dispute

    Gibbs Giden is Pleased to Announce Four New Partners and Two New Associates

    A New AAA Study Confirms that Arbitration is Faster to Resolution Than Court – And the Difference Can be Assessed Monetarily

    "Ordinance or Law" Provision Mandates Coverage for Roof Repair

    Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment in Pinellas County Circuit Court

    Federal Court Requires Auto Liability Carrier to Cover Suit Involving Independent Contractor Despite “Employee Exclusion”

    Las Vegas, Back From the Bust, Revives Dead Projects

    Expert Can be Questioned on a Construction Standard, Even if Not Relied Upon

    Sustainability Puts Down Roots in Real Estate

    Architect Sues School District

    Harmon Towers Demolition Still Uncertain

    NYPD Investigating Two White Flags on Brooklyn Bridge

    Contract Change #9: Owner’s Right to Carry Out the Work (law note)

    Indemnity Provision Provides Relief to Contractor; Additional Insured Provision Does Not

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

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!

    Design-build Trends, Challenges and Risk Mitigation

    Building Resiliency: Withstanding Wildfires and Other Natural Disasters

    Effective July 1, 2022, Contractors Will be Liable for their Subcontractor’s Failure to Pay its Employees’ Wages and Benefits

    XL Group Pairs with America Contractor’s Insurance Group to Improve Quality of Construction

    Supreme Court of Kentucky Holds Plaintiff Can Recover for Stigma Damages in Addition to Repair Costs Resulting From Property Damage

    Want to Use Drones in Your Construction Project? FAA Has Just Made It Easier.

    Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?

    Defining Catastrophic Injury Claims

    Prime Contractor & Surety’s Recovery of Attorney’s Fees in Miller Act Lawsuit

    Builders Can’t Rely on SB800

    While Starts Fall, Builder Confidence and Permits are on the Rise

    Consolidated Case With Covered and Uncovered Allegations Triggers Duty to Defend
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Building Recovery Comes to Las Vegas, Provides Relief

    October 01, 2013 —
    The recession hit the Las Vegas area hard, and so residents are now relieved as the economy recovers. During the recession, the area lost more than 70,000 construction jobs. Those who remained still found it hard t find work. But KVVU, Las Vegas, spoke with Fredy Salguero, a construction worker who still finds getting a steady paycheck a challenge. “You work like one, two, three days a week, and before you were able to work six or seven.” The signs are good that better times will be coming for Mr. Salguero. Housing prices are up 30 percent and there are $7 million of commercial projects on the Las Vegas Strip. With the nation’s highest unemployment rate, Nevada needs the help. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas Walks the Line on When the Duty to Preserve Evidence at a Fire Scene Arises

    October 14, 2019 —
    The extent to which a loss scene can be altered before adversaries can legitimately cry spoliation has long been a mysterious battleground in the world of subrogation. In the case of In re Xterra Constr., LLC, No. 10-16-00420-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 3927 (Tex. App. – Waco, May 15, 2019), the Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, addressed the question of when a party has a duty to preserve evidence. The court found that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions on the defendants for the spoliation of evidence as the evidence at issue was already gone by the time the defendants knew or reasonably should have known there was a substantial chance a claim would be filed against them. In this matter, Xterra Construction, LLC, Venturi Capital, Inc. d/b/a Artisan Cabinets and Keith D. Richbourg (collectively, Xterra) leased a commercial space from building owners Daniel Hull and William H. Beazley, Jr. (collectively, Hull) to be used as a woodworking and cabinet making warehouse. On October 18, 2014, there was a fire at the warehouse. By October 20, 2014, Xterra informed its insurance carrier, Cincinnati Insurances Companies (“Cincinnati”) of the loss and Cincinnati’s adjuster, Leann Williams (Williams), met with Keith D. Richbourg (Richbourg) at the site. Williams also hired expert Jim Reil (Reil) to inspect the fire scene to perform a cause and origin investigation. The next day, Williams informed Hull’s attorney that Reil would inspect the scene on October 23, 2014. Hulls attorney, however, did not send anyone to the scene to participate in the inspection. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.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

    Another Smart Home Innovation: Remote HVAC Diagnostics

    June 17, 2015 —
    Builder magazine reported that “smart home technology manufacturer Nexia Home Intelligence now offers monitoring of a home’s HVAC system even when owners are away. If an issue arises, it can be fixed quickly, sometimes without a service call, the company says.” The service is available “with Trane and American Standard Wi-Fi-enabled thermostats” and requires a free Nexia account. System alerts are automatically transmitted to the dealer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Licensing Mistakes That Can Continue to Haunt You

    November 28, 2022 —
    Today there are nearly 290,000 contractors licensed in California. This number continues to grow as California law requires businesses or individuals who alter any road or structure to be licensed contractors if the total cost of the project is $500 or more (including labor and materials). Complaints about improper and defective work performed by contractors are constantly filed with the California Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”) and any violations by those contractors could result in a license suspension. A contractor whose license is suspended by the CSLB or otherwise becomes unlicensed jeopardizes a contractor’s livelihood, compromises current insurance policies, and curtails an ability to obtain future insurance coverage. Moreover, being unlicensed could force a contractor to disgorge all money received on a project per California Business & Professions Code § 7031. What can contractors do to stay vigilant and avoid these scary outcomes? Stay tuned for a few suggestions. 1. Stay Qualified Contractors must make sure the correct person and/or entity is holding the contractor’s license. Contractors can obtain licenses as a sole owner, partnership, corporation, joint venture, or limited liability company. For any form of the business entity, one individual must act as qualifier to meet the CLSB license requirements. This qualifying individual must have the knowledge, experience, and skills to manage the daily activities of a construction business (including field supervision) or be represented by someone else with at least four years of experience within the past ten years as an unsupervised journeyperson, foreperson, supervising employee, or contractor in the trade being applied for. Reprinted courtesy of Alexa Stephenson, Kahana Feld and Rick Seely, Kahana Feld Ms. Stephenson may be contacted at astephenson@kahanafeld.com Mr. Seely may be contacted at rseely@kahanafeld.com 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

    Proving Contractor Licensure in California. The Tribe Has Spoken

    October 21, 2015 —
    As I mentioned in an earlier post, in California you must “prove” you’re a licensed contractor in a construction case. But in whose hands are you entitled to place your fate – the judge or the jury? Well, the tribe has spoken. Jeff Tracy, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera In Jeff Tracy, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera, Case Nos. B258563 and B258648, California Court of Appeals for the Second District (September 15, 2015), general contractor Jeff Tracy, Inc. doing business as Land Forms Construction (“Land Forms”) was walloped with a nearly $5.5 million judgment for being improperly licensed on a park project owned by the City of Pico Rivera (“City”). The judgment followed a bench trial over Land Form’s objection that it was entitled to a jury trial. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    District Court of Missouri Limits Whining About the Scope of Waiver of Subrogation Clauses in Wine Storage Agreements

    May 01, 2019 —
    In Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Cellar Advisors, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10655 (E.D. Mo.), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri considered the scope of a waiver of subrogation clause in two wine storage agreements. The court held that the subrogation waivers were limited in scope and, potentially, did not apply to the damages alleged in the pleadings. This case establishes that, in Missouri, waivers of subrogation are narrowly construed and cannot be enforced beyond the scope of the specific context in which they appear. In 2005, Krista and Reid Buerger (the Buergers) contracted Marc Lazar (Lazar) to assist with purchasing, transporting and storing their wine. In 2006, the Buergers entered into a contract with Lazar’s company, Domaine StL, for the storage of their wine in St. Louis. In 2012, the Buergers contracted with Lazar’s other company, Domaine NY, for storage of their wine in New Jersey. The 2006 and 2012 contracts included subrogation waivers. Pursuant to the contracts, Lazar and the Domaine companies (collectively, Defendants) would buy wine for the Buergers by either using the Buergers’ credit card or invoicing them after a purchase. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com