BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut ada design 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


    Texas Jury Awards $5.3 Million to Company Defamed by Union: Could it work in Pennsylvania?

    Cold Weather Causes Power Blackouts, Disruptions on Jobsites

    Attorneys' Fee Clauses are Engraved Invitations to Sue

    Subsurface Water Exclusion Found Unambiguous

    Reconciling Prompt Payments and Withholding of Retention Payments

    Loss Caused by Theft, Continuous Water Discharge Not Covered

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Champagne Wishes and Caviar Dreams. Unlicensed Contractor Takes the Cake

    Hawaii Supreme Court Tackles "Other Insurance" Issues

    CDJ’s #3 Topic of the Year: Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2014)

    Hanover, Germany Apple Store Delayed by Construction Defects

    Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

    Virginia Chinese Drywall and pollution exclusion

    Four Common Construction Contracts

    Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc.

    Construction Payment Remedies: You May be Able to Skate by, But Why?

    Specification Challenge; Excusable Delay; Type I Differing Site Condition; Superior Knowledge

    Judge Halts Sale of Brazilian Plywood

    Firm Claims Construction Defects in Hawaiian Homes

    Construction Contract’s Scope of Work Should Be Written With Clarity

    Green Construction Trends Contractors Can Expect in 2019

    Why A Jury Found That Contractor 'Retaliated' Against Undocumented Craft Worker

    Consequential Damage Claims for Insurer's Bad Faith Dismissed

    2022 California Construction Law Update

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (09/21/22) – 3D Printing, Sustainable Design, and the Housing Market Correction

    White and Williams Celebrates 125th Anniversary

    Fannie Mae Says Millennials Are Finally Leaving Their Parents' Basements

    Connecticut Federal District Court Keeps Busy With Collapse Cases

    Dallas Home Being Built of Shipping Containers

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    Denver Airport's Renovator Uncovers Potential Snag

    EPA Announces that January 2017 Revised RMP Rules are Now Effective

    New Change Order Bill Becomes Law: RCW 39.04.360

    When Construction Contracts Go Sideways in Bankruptcy

    Solicitor General’s Views to Supreme Court on Two Circuit Court Rulings that Groundwater Can be Considered “Waters of the United States”

    Small Airport to Grow with Tower

    Waiving Consequential Damages—What Could Go Wrong?

    House Panel Subpoenas VA Documents on Colorado Project

    Colorado Abandons the “Completed and Accepted Rule” in Favor of the “Foreseeability Rule” in Determining a Contractor’s Duty to a Third Party After Work Has Been Completed

    Construction of New U.S. Homes Declines on Plunge in South

    Drastic Rebuild Resurrects Graves' Landmark Portland Building

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” and Tier 2 for Orange County by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2023

    ConsensusDOCS Hits the Cloud

    Additional Insured Obligations and the Underlying Lawsuit

    Pine Island Bridge in Place as Florida Pushes Barrier Island Access in Ian's Wake

    Reinsurer's Obligation to Provide Coverage Determined Under English Law

    Attorney’s Fees Entitlement And Application Under Subcontract Default Provision

    Hamptons Home Up for Foreclosure That May Set Record

    Economic Waste Doctrine and Construction Defects / Nonconforming Work

    You May Be Able to Dodge a Bullet, But Not a Gatling Gun
    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

    The Sounds of Silence: Pennsylvania’s Sutton Rule

    January 29, 2024 —
    In Westminster Am. Ins. Co. a/s/o Androulla M. Toffalli v. Bond, No. 538 EDA 2023, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 626, 2023 PA Super 272, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Appellate Court) recently discussed the impact of silence on the Sutton Rule with respect to the landlord, Androulla M. Toffalli (Landlord), securing insurance. After holding that the tenant, Amy S. Bond (Bond) t/a Blondie’s Salon – who leased both commercial and residential space in the building pursuant to written leases – was not an implied “co-insured” on Landlord’s insurance policy, the Appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial court. In this case, Bond rented the ground floor of a property located in Monroe County pursuant to a written commercial lease (Commercial Lease) and operated Blondie’s salon out of the leased location. In addition, Bond rented and lived in a second-floor apartment pursuant to a residential lease (Residential Lease). Both leases required the tenants (Tenants) to obtain insurance for personal items. The leases, however, did not require Landlord to obtain fire insurance for the property. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Incorrect Information Provided on Insurance Application Defeats Claim for Coverage

    July 31, 2024 —
    The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's finding of no duty to defend or indemnify because of an answer on the insured's application for insurance. Snell v. United Specialty Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. App. 12733 (11th Cir. May 28, 2024). Snell was hired by a family, the Westons, to turn an above ground trampoline into a ground level trampoline. This involved various tasks like tree pruning and removal, installation of shrubs, trees, and sod, and setting up a sprinkler irrigation system. The trampoline aspect of the project involved site work to make a place for the trampoline and assembly and installation of the trampoline. The site work included excavation of a pit, installation of a drain and drainage sand, excavation of a trench to install a drainage pipe, installation of the drainage pipe and of a drain pump, construction of concrete block retainer walls and installation of a wood cap on the retainer walls. Then, Snell unboxed the trampoline, assembled it, and lowered it into the pit. A few years later, a visitor to the Weston home sued the Westons for injuries to his daughter suffered on the trampoline. The complaint alleged the daughter was injured when she "fell off of the trampoline and struck her face on the wooden board" surrounding the tramline. The complaint was later amended to add Snell as a defendant. 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

    Additional Insured Coverage Confirmed

    February 23, 2016 —
    The Texas Court of Appeals found that Exxon Mobil Corporation was an additional insured under the CGL policy for Exxon's service provider. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 12757 (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2015). Exxon contracted with Wyatt Field Service Company to perform "services" as set forth in various work orders from Exxon's affiliates. The contract also required Wyatt to maintain $5 million of commercial general liability insurance. The contract provided that the policies must cover Exxon and its affiliates "as additional insureds in connection with the performance of Services." In 2008, Wyatt was assigned to work on a flexicoker unit at Exxon's refinery. Wyatt was to reinstall dummy nozzles and chains. It completed this service in October 2008. Three years later, one of the dummy nozzles pulled free, and the escaping steam and coke burned three individuals who were working on the unit. After the accident, it was discovered that the safety chain had been installed in the wrong location so that it did not properly secure the dummy nozzle. 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

    Court of Appeals Rules that HOA Lien is not Spurious, Despite Claim that Annexation was Invalid

    March 27, 2019 —
    Today, the Colorado Court of appeals reversed a order that had deemed a homeowner association’s lien to be spurious. The case arose after a developer approved a property owner’s application to annex additional real estate to a community in 1999. Several years later, the developer repurchased the property through a foreclosure sale. Despite its prior approval of the annexation, the developer refused to pay community maintenance assessments, which prompted the association to record a lien under its covenants and a statutory provision of the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA). The parties remained in a standoff until 2016, when the Colorado Supreme Court announced two decisions that adopted a stricter standard for annexing property into communities subject to CCIOA. Relying on this new authority, the developer at Stroh Ranch argued that the 1999 annexation was no longer valid. The district court agreed and declared the association’s lien to be spurious. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Torrey Pines Court Receives Funding for Renovation

    August 06, 2014 —
    San Diego Source reported that “CIT Real Estate Finance provided…$60 million…to refinance existing debt and fund the renovations at Torrey Pines Court,” a five-building Class A office campus located in La Jolla, California. The 206,128 square foot complex, which resides on 9.24 acres, is adjacent to the Torrey Pines Golf Course. CIT has funded the project in partnership with Rockwood Capital and The Muller Company. "We are excited to begin renovations that will complete our repositioning of Torrey Pines Court with state-of-the-art office space and amenities,” David Streicher, Partner at Rockwood Capital, stated according to a press release in the Wall Street Journal. “We expect that the renovations, coupled with the project's picturesque setting, will solidify Torrey Pines Court's position as the preferred office destination in the submarket. We thank CIT for working with us to create a sound financing package that will take this project to the next level." Read the full story, San Diego Source... Read the full story, Wall Street Journal... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Property Tax Exemption, Misapplied, in Texas

    June 18, 2019 —
    In an important ruling for Texas businesses, the Texas Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the TCEQ misapplied the Texas property tax’s exemption for specified pollution control equipment. Since 1993, the Texas Constitution has included a provision which authorizes the Texas Legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation “all or part of real and personal property used … wholly or partly … for the control or reduction of air, water or land pollution.” This provision is implemented by Section 11.31 of the Texas Tax Code, which is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (See the rules at Title 30, Chapter 17 of the Texas Administrative Code.) If the Executive Director of the TCEQ determines that the equipment is used wholly or partly for pollution control, he issues a “positive use determination”; in the event it does not, the Executive Director issues a “negative use determination and rejects the application for the exemption. In 2007, Section 11.31 was amended at 11.31 (k) to list several items of equipment that are presumed to be pollution-control equipment, including “heat recovery steam generators” or HRSGs. This equipment is used by powerplants to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions that are the product of generation of electricity. Several applications were submitted to the TCEQ by the Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, seeking a tax exemption for its HRSG units. In July 2012, the TCEQ denied these applications, with the flat declaration that HRSGs are not pollution-control equipment—“they are used solely for production.” The Brazos Cooperative sued the Commission, and on May 3, 2019, in the case of Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. TCEQ, the Texas Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion reversing the Commission, and the lower court (the Eight Court of Appeals, sitting in El Paso) that affirmed the Commission’s action. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Two More Lawsuits Filed Over COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

    April 13, 2020 —
    Two more lawsuits were filed yesterday concerning business interruption losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs, the Chickasaw and Choctaw nations, filed their lawsuits, copies of which can be found here and here, in Oklahoma state court against a litany of property insurers, led by AIG. The lawsuits seek an order that any financial losses suffered by the nations’ casinos, restaurants and other businesses as a result of the coronavirus pandemic are covered by the nations’ insurance policies. According to the complaints:
    On or about March of 2020, the United States of America became infected by COVID 19 resulting in a pandemic. As a result of this pandemic and infection, the Nation’s Property sustained direct physical loss or damage and will continue to sustain direct physical loss or damage covered by the policies, including but not limited to business interruption, extra expense, interruption by civil authority, limitations on ingress and egress, and expenses to reduce loss. As a direct result of this pandemic and infection, the Nation’s Property has been damaged, as described above, and cannot be used for its intended purpose.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
    Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

    Delaware District Court Finds CGL Insurer Owes Condo Builder a Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims — Based on the Subcontractor Exception to the Your Work Exclusion

    October 04, 2021 —
    On September 7, 2021, in one of the few decisions addressing the scope of coverage for faulty workmanship under Delaware law, the Delaware District Court denied an insurer’s motion seeking a declaration that it neither needed to defend nor indemnify an insured-builder under a commercial general liability policy. In this declaratory judgment action, Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Zonko Builders, the insurer argued that the ongoing underlying action failed to properly plead an “occurrence” in a case alleging damages to a condominium caused by faulty workmanship involving subcontractors.* Zonko Builders (Zonko) served as the general contractor, supervising subcontractors. The Condominium Association sued Zonko for damages allegedly resulting from design and construction deficiencies. The motion was opposed by the Condominium Association, which cross-moved for partial judgment on the pleadings. In AE-Newark Associates, L.P. v. CNA Insurance Companies, 2001 Del. Super. LEXIS 370 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 2, 2001), the Delaware Superior Court found that an insured was entitled to coverage for damages arising from a faulty roof system installed by a subcontractor on behalf of the insured general contractor. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Laura Rossi, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of