BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractor
    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


    In Supreme Court Showdown, California Appeals Courts Choose Sides Regarding Whether Right to Repair Act is Exclusive Remedy for Homeowners

    Toll Brothers Shows how the Affluent Buyer is Driving Up Prices

    Have the Feds Taken Over Arbitration?

    Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    Sixth Circuit Lifts Stay on OSHA’s COVID-19 Temporary Emergency Standards. Supreme Court to Review

    Six Reasons to Use Regular UAV Surveys on Every Construction Project

    “Pay When Paid” Provisions May Not Be Dead, at Least Not Yet

    Insurer Must Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Construction Leads World Trade Center Area Vulnerable to Flooding

    Litigation Privilege Saves the Day for Mechanic’s Liens

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    Construction Contract Language and Insurance Coverage Must Be Consistent

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    Blackstone Said in $1.7 Billion Deal to Buy Apartments

    Notice of Claim Sufficient to Invoke Coverage

    Former Hoboken, New Jersey Mayor Disbarred for Taking Bribes

    Congress Relaxes Several PPP Loan Requirements

    Couple Claims Poor Installation of Home Caused Defects

    Possible Real Estate and Use and Occupancy Tax Relief for Philadelphia Commercial and Industrial Property Owners

    Washington Supreme Court Interprets Ensuing Loss Exception in All-Risk Property Insurance Policy

    Are Construction Defect Laws Inhibiting the Development of Attached Ownership Housing in Colorado?

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

    Affordable Harlem Housing Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    Fraud, the VCPA and Construction Contracts

    Congratulations to Haight’s 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers

    Top 10 OSHA Violations For The Construction Industry In 2023

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

    The Fair Share Act Impacts the Strategic Planning of a Jury Trial

    ASCE Statement On House Passage Of The Precip Act

    Construction on the Rise in Washington Town

    Loan Snarl Punishes Spain Builder Backed by Soros, Gates

    Structural Engineer Found Liable for Defects that Rendered a Condominium Dangerously Unsafe

    Language California Construction Direct Contractors Must Add to Subcontracts Beginning on January 1, 2022, Per Senate Bill 727

    Supreme Court Eliminates Judicial 'Chevron' Deference to Federal Agency Statutory Interpretations

    Iowa Apartment Complex Owners Awarded Millions for Building Defects

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Arbitration Motion Practice

    CAPSA Changes Now in Effect

    The Legal Landscape

    Counsel Investigating Coverage Can be Sued for Invasion of Privacy

    Home Building Mergers and Acquisitions 2014 Predictions

    How the Jury Divided $112M in Seattle Crane Collapse Damages

    Beware of Statutory Limits on Change Orders

    Multiple Occurrences Found For Claims Against Supplier of Asbestos Products

    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

    Re-Entering the Workplace: California's Guideline for Employers

    Environmental Justice Update: The Justice40 Initiative

    Bidder Be Thoughtful: The Impacts of Disclaimers in Pre-Bid Reports

    In One of the First Civil Jury Trials to Proceed Live in Los Angeles Superior Court During Covid, Aneta Freeman Successfully Prevailed on Behalf of our Client and Obtained a Directed Verdict and Non-Suit

    Insurer Fails to Establish Prejudice Due to Late Notice

    Patti Santelle Honored by Rutgers School of Law with Arthur E. Armitage Sr. Distinguished Alumni Award
    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

    Alleged Damage to Personal Property Does Not Revive Coverage for Construction Defects

    November 23, 2016 —
    The Illinois Appellate Court determined the general contractor was not covered for construction defects despite allegations of damage to personal property. Wesfield Ins. Co. v. West Van Buren, LLC, 59 N.E. 2d 877, (Ill. Ct. App. 2016). The developer constructed a condominium development in Chicago. The installation of the roof was contracted to Total Roofing. Total Roofing agreed to insure and indemnify the developer against liability for Total Roofing's work. Total Roofing obtained a CGL policy with Westfield Insurance Company listing the developer as an additional insured. 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

    Virginia Chinese Drywall and pollution exclusion

    May 27, 2011 —

    In Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. The Overlook, LLC, No. 4:10cv69 (E.D. Va. May 13, 2011), homeowner Edmonds sued insured developer/general contractor Overlook seeking damages resulting from defective Chinese drywall installed in Edmonds’ home. Overlook’s CGL insurer Nationwide defended Overlook under a reservation of rights and filed a declaratory judgment action. The federal district trial court granted Nationwide’s motion for summary judgment.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

    Engineer and CNA Dispute Claim Over Dual 2014 Bridge Failures

    December 15, 2016 —
    An engineering company whose error led to two pedestrian bridge collapses in North Carolina in 2014 that left one worker dead and caused costly damage contends it is being unfairly denied $2 million in potential insurance coverage by its carrier due to what it claims is an “ambiguous” wording of the policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    NY Construction Safety Firm Falsely Certified Workers, Says Manhattan DA

    March 25, 2024 —
    A New York-based construction safety firm and 25 individuals were indicted Feb. 28 for allegedly operating a bogus safety training school, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office says. The firm, Valor Security & Investigations is also linked to “endangering the life” of Ivan Frias, who fell to his death from the 15th floor of a New York City construction site in 2022. Reprinted courtesy of Johanna Knapschaefer, Engineering News-Record Ms. Knapschaefer may be contacted at knapj@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Too Costly to Be Fair: Texas Appellate Court Finds the Arbitration Clause in a Residential Construction Contract Unenforceable

    November 21, 2022 —
    In Cont’l Homes of Tex., L.P. v. Perez, No. 04-21-00396-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 7691, the Court of Appeals of Texas (Appellate Court) considered whether the lower court erred in refusing to enforce an arbitration clause in a construction contract between the parties. The Appellate Court considered the costs of the arbitration forum required by the contract in the context of the plaintiffs’ monthly household income. The court also compared the arbitration cost to the estimated cost of litigating the dispute. The court held that the arbitration clause was substantively unconscionable on the grounds that the arbitration costs were not affordable for the plaintiffs and not an “adequate and accessible substitute to litigation.” The Appellate Court affirmed the lower court’s decision denying the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The plaintiffs, Giancarlo and Krystle Perez (collectively, the Perezes), hired the defendant, Continental Homes of Texas, LP d/b/a Express Home (Express Homes), to build a new home in San Antonio. Express Homes provided its standard contract, which included a binding arbitration clause. The clause stated that every potential dispute between the parties occurring before and after the closing of the purchase of the home was subject to binding arbitration, to be administered and conducted by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). The clause also stated that the costs of the arbitration were to be split by the parties. 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

    Can We Compel Insurers To Cover Construction Defect in General Liability Policies?

    December 09, 2011 —

    Recently, I read an article on Engineering News-Record that outlines a remarkable movement by as many as four states, to mandate coverage of construction defects in contractor general liability insurance policies. Say what? Is this a reality? What will become of affordable insurance?

    Commercial General Liability insurance, or CGL, is your basic liability insurance. Every contractor doing business in the State of Washington, and most likely those abroad, has this insurance. Contractors buy this insurance to protect them from unforeseen liabilities arising from their negligence - and right now it’s reasonably affordable.

    Why is it so affordable in such a risk-heavy industry? Because CGL policies significantly limit the scope of their coverage. Coverage is generally afforded for damages resulting from negligence (The roofer put a hammer through the drywall contractor’s wall) or which resulted from your defective construction (the roof leaked and flooded the rest of the house). But, that coverage does not include replacement of your faulty construction (the contents of the home might be protected by your leaky roof - the leaky roof itself is not).

    The debate over coverage typically stems from the definition of “occurrence,” a term used to describe the event from which coverage arises, “resulting loss,” a term used to describe the type of loss covered.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

    Prior Occurrence Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defects

    April 11, 2022 —
    While the insured's faulty work constituted an occurrence under Florida law, a prior occurrence exclusion barred coverage. Pro-Tech Caulking & Waterproofing v. TIG Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12319 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2022). Pro-Tech was a waterproofing subcontractor for construction of a oceanfront condominium building and was responsible for the installation of waterproofing systems on the Project. Pro-Tech entered into a separate contract with the developer, BRE Point Parcel, LLC to install a traffic coating on the garage floors. BRE sued the general contractor, Pro-Tech and others for construction defects. The underlying action alleged that Pro-Tech, among other things, failed to wrap the filter fabric to protect the weep holes, improperly installed sealants between the stucco and the underside of the horizontal tile at the balcony slab edge, and failed to properly install traffic coating in one garage. The underlying complaint did not state exactly when the "property damage" resulting from Pro-Tech's alleged defective work occurred. 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

    Difficult Task for Court to Analyze Delay and Disorder on Construction Project

    August 23, 2021 —
    One of my favorites quotes from a case, and I am sure others in the construction industry feel the same way or can relate, is from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Blake Construction Co., Inc. v. C.J. Coakley Co., Inc., 431 A.2d 569, 575 (D.C. 1981):
    We note parenthetically and at the outset that, except in the middle of a battlefield, nowhere must men coordinate the movement of other men and all materials in the midst of such chaos and with such limited certainty of present facts and future occurrences as in a huge construction project such as the building of this 100 million dollar hospital. Even the most painstaking planning frequently turns out to be mere conjecture and accommodation to changes must necessarily be of the rough, quick and ad hoc sort, analogous to ever-changing commands on the battlefield. Further, it is a difficult task for a court to be able to examine testimony and evidence in the quiet of a courtroom several years later concerning such confusion and then extract from them a determination of precisely when the disorder and constant readjustment, which is to be expected by any subcontractor on a job site, become so extreme, so debilitating and so unreasonable as to constitute a breach of contract between a contractor and a subcontractor.
    Do you agree with this sentiment? The reality is that retrospectively analyzing delay on a complicated construction project with numerous moving parts on a day-by-day, hour-by-hour, basis is no easy feat. It is not easy for the parties and certainly not easy for courts to unravel. With every party claiming delay based on a retrospective analysis there will be another party with either a different delay analysis or providing credible cross examination as to flaws with the delay analysis. The same bodes true with loss of productivity / inefficiency claims and the particular case-specific facts are important, preferably with evidence such as photos, videos, notifications, daily reports, manpower reports, etc., supporting the facts. But the facts are complicated, and the delay analysis is complicated, and it is a difficult task for a trier of fact to unravel these facts. 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