BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofing
    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


    More Business Value from Drones with Propeller and Trimble – Interview with Rory San Miguel

    You Cannot Always Contract Your Way Out of a Problem (The Case for Dispute Resolution in Mega and Large Complex Construction Projects)

    Mediation Clause Can Stay a Miller Act Claim, Just Not Forever

    History and Gentrification Clash in a Gilded Age Resort

    Louisiana 13th in List of Defective Bridges

    Haight’s Sacramento Office Has Moved

    Denver Officials Clamor for State Construction Defect Law

    U.K. Developer Pledges Building Safety in Wake of Grenfell

    Condo Building Increasing in Washington D.C.

    The Need for Situational Awareness in Construction

    Broker's Motion for Summary Judgment on Negligence Claim Denied

    The Risks and Rewards of Sustainable Building Design

    Terminating the Notice of Commencement (with a Notice of Termination)

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    Reasonable Expectations – Pennsylvania’s Case by Case Approach to the Sutton Rule

    Tort Claims Against an Alter Ego May Be Considered an Action “On a Contract” for the Purposes of an Attorneys’ Fees Award under California Civil Code section 1717

    No Coverage for Property Damage That is Limited to Work Completed by Subcontractor

    New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

    Cal/OSHA-Approved Changes to ETS Will Take Effect May 6, 2022

    How Concrete Mistakes Added Cost to the Recent Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge Project

    Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Duty to Defend When Case Law is Uncertain

    Lewis Brisbois’ Houston Office Selected as a 2020 Top Workplace by the Houston Chronicle

    No Signature? Potentially No Problem for Sureties Enforcing a Bond’s Forum Selection Clause

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “The New Empty Chair.”

    No Duty to Defend under Homeowner's Policy Where No Occurrence, No Property Damage

    Ninth Circuit Issues Pro-Contractor Licensing Ruling

    Insurance Agent Sued for Lapse in Coverage after House Collapses

    BOO! Running From Chainsaw Wielding Actor then Falling is an Inherent Risk of a Haunted Attraction

    Don’t Ignore a Notice of Contest of Lien

    Apprentices on Public Works Projects: Sometimes it’s Not What You Do But Who You Do the Work For That Counts

    Turkey to Start Building 200,000 Homes in March, Erdogan Says

    Update: Amazon Can (Still) Be Liable in Louisiana

    Las Vegas Harmon Hotel to be Demolished without Opening

    Factor the Factor in Factoring

    Judge Who Oversees Mass. Asbestos Docket Takes New Role As Chief Justice of Superior Court

    6 Ways to Reduce Fire Safety Hazards in BESS

    Denver Condo Development Increasing, with Caution

    San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim

    BWB&O’s Los Angeles Partner Eileen Gaisford and Associate Kelsey Kohnen Win a Motion for Terminating Sanctions!

    Fast-Moving Isaias Dishes Out Disruption in the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast

    Large Canada Employers and Jobsites Mandate COVID-19 Vaccines

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/04/23) – NFL Star Gets into Real Estate, DOJ Focuses on “Buyer-Broker Commissions”, and the Auto Workers’ Strike Continues

    Changes to Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code

    Ninth Circuit Court Weighs In On Insurance Coverage For COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

    It’s Not What You Were Thinking!

    Chinese Millionaire Roils Brokers Over Shrinking Mansion

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part I

    Retired Judge Claims Asbestos in Courthouse gave him Cancer

    Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s

    Ninth Circuit Upholds Corps’ Issuance of CWA Section 404 Permit for Newhall Ranch Project Near Santa Clarita, CA
    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

    Illinois Law Bars Coverage for Construction Defects in Insured's Work

    September 24, 2014 —
    Applying Illinois law, the Seventh Circuit determined there was no coverage for faulty workmanship causing property damage to the insured's project. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Board of Directors of Regal Lofts Condominium Ass'n, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16250 (7th Cir. Aug. 21, 2014). The developer converted a vacant building into a condominium. The construction was completed in 2000. The Condominium Board took control of the condo association on July 27, 2000. As early as May 2000, one homeowner was aware of water damage problems in the building. Other complaints surfaced. An investigation found that the exterior brick masonry walls were not fully waterproofed, which caused leaks. The investigation further showed that deteriorated conditions had likely developed over many years, even prior to the condominium conversion, but the present water penetration was caused by the inadequate restoration of the walls to a water-tight condition. The underlying action was filed against the developer for failure to properly construct the exterior walls. The developer's carrier, Nautilus, denied coverage. In an amended complaint, the Board added a count of negligence. Again, Nautilus denied coverage. The Board's second amended complaint alleged that the developer's negligence had caused damage to personal property within the building, in addition to the interior of the building and the building itself. For the third time, Nautilus denied coverage and filed for declaratory relief. 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

    What if the "Your Work" Exclusion is Inapplicable? ISO Classification and Construction Defect Claims.

    February 14, 2023 —
    This article was first published by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) on their NAHBNow blog One of the risks faced by a residential builder is that, following completion of construction, the homeowner may assert a claim against the builder for damage to the home caused by an alleged construction defect. One of the ways a builder manages the risk of such construction defect claims is by purchasing commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance. A builder’s CGL policy covers those sums the builder is legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an “occurrence,” that is, damage that is accidental rather than being expected or intended by the builder, so long as the claim does not fall within any of the policy’s several “exclusions” from coverage. When faced with a construction defect lawsuit, our builder clients are often surprised—and dismayed—when their CGL insurer denies coverage and refuses to defend the builder. However, builders shouldn’t take their insurer’s denial of coverage at face value. This article discusses a new argument we recently discovered that has been a game-changer for our builder clients who were denied coverage in construction defect cases. Whether coverage exists always depends on the specific language of the particular CGL policy, and courts generally construe exclusions against insurers. This allows experienced coverage attorneys to, at times, successfully challenge declinations of coverage and, at a minimum, convince insurers to pay for the builder’s defense. A typical CGL policy provides products-completed operations coverage, which is sought by businesses that face potential liability arising out of the products that they have sold or operations that they have completed. Products-completed operations coverage allows builders to obtain many years of coverage for a completed project. Over the years, insurers have added to their policies modifications and exclusions that limit their exposure for claims that fall under that coverage. Exclusion (l) or the “your work” exclusion, will often exclude coverage for a latent defect claim against the builder. A standard “your work” exclusion provides:
    This insurance does not apply to: . . . “[p]roperty damage” to “your work” arising out of it or any part of it and included in the “products-completed operations hazard.”
    This “your work” and similar exclusions are designed to limit coverage for business risks that are within the contractor’s own control; e.g., a claim that the contractor caused damage to the contractor’s own work. These exclusions apply both to ongoing and completed projects, which can leave a builder unprotected from lawsuits for years after a project is completed. However, builders who are classified on the declarations page with Code 91580 Contractors— Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents, may not be subject to the “your work” exclusion. 91580 is a common classification assigned to builders during insurance underwriting. This classification falls into what is referred to as “dagger class” or “plus sign class,” which indicates that Products and/or Completed Operations coverage is included as part of and not separate from the Premises/Operations coverage (emphasis added). It has been noted that dagger” and “plus sign” classifications create confusion because of the seeming contradiction between policy wording and coverage rules.* The CGL policy seems to expressly exclude products and/or completed operations losses for “dagger” or “plus sign” classes. In the definitions section we find the following:
    “Products-completed operations hazard”: . . .b. Does not Include “bodily Injury” or “property damage” arising out of:. . . (3) Products or operations for which the classification, listed In the Declarations or in a policy schedule, states that products- completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit.”
    This apparent exclusionary language, however, must be read in conjunction with the Insurance Services Office’s (ISO) Rule 25.F.1.:
    Rule 25. CLASSIFICATIONS F. Symbols 1. Plus Sign A plus sign when shown in the Premium Base column under General Liability insurance in the Classification Table - means that coverage for Products and/or Completed Operations is included in the Premises/Operations coverage at no additional premium charge. When this situation applies, the classification described in the policy schedule or Declarations must state that: “Products-completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit” to provide Products and/or Completed Operations coverage(s).
    When read together then, the exclusionary wording in the policy definition removes any product or operation loss subject to the “dagger” or “plus sign” classification from the definition of Products Completed Operations Hazard. Under the dagger or plus sign classification of Rule 25, coverage for products and/or operations is included in the premises operations coverage. Consequently, a loss can no longer be defined as a product completed loss, and as a result it is no longer subject to the “your work” exclusion. Recall that the standard “your work” exclusion quoted above excludes coverage for “property damage” to “your work” “arising out of it or any part of it and included in the “products-completed operations hazard”.” Here, we emphasize “and” because the “your work” exclusion applies only to property damage that is also included in the “products-completed operations hazard.” Since property damage claims arising under “plus sign” classifications are expressly excluded from the “products-completed operations hazard” (they are included in the premises/operations coverage) the “your work” exclusion simply does not apply. This means that, if your CGL insurer denies your construction defect claim based on the “your work” exclusion, do what the title of this article suggests: Check your ISO classification! If 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents” is listed on your Declarations page, you may be in luck. This new ISO classification-based coverage argument will likely also apply to other exclusions and endorsements that CGL insurers routinely rely on in denying coverage in construction defect cases. We recently successfully challenged a coverage denial based on the following “prior work” exclusionary endorsement:
    ”This insurance does not apply to ‘your products’ or ‘your work’ completed prior to” a certain date listed in the endorsement. . . “Specifically, this insurance does not apply to. . . “property damage”. . . included in the ‘products-completed operations hazard’ and arising out of. . . ‘your work’ performed by or on behalf of you prior to the date shown above.”
    Again, this endorsement incorporates the “products-completed operations hazard,” which allowed us to successfully argue that the exclusion was inapplicable to a builder classified as a 91580 “Executive Supervisor or Executive Superintendent.” To our knowledge, this new ISO classification-based coverage argument has not yet been addressed by a court. Our recent successes with it have concluded with favorable settlements for our clients. Accordingly, for now, the ISO classification-based argument is a powerful new tool to challenge denials of coverage in construction defect cases where the builder is classified under 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents.” David Humphreys is a Partner at Carson Law Group, PLLC, and has been representing construction contractors, subcontractors, and owners for more than two decades in Mississippi and throughout the Southeast. *See “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean, Chris Boggs - Virtual University | “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean) (independentagent.com) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    HOA Group Speaking Out Against Draft of Colorado’s Construction Defects Bill

    April 30, 2014 —
    Ed Sealover of the Denver Business Journal reported on a homeowner association group that has spoken out against the recent draft of Colorado’s Construction Defects bill. According to Sealover’s article, Senator Jessie Ulibarri claimed that the “proposed bill…would mandate that homeowners alleging that owner-occupied multi-family structures have major construction defects go through mediation or arbitration before a lawsuit can be filed.” Furthermore, the bill would require “written consent from a majority of unit owners” before the “executive board of a homeowners association files such a lawsuit.” The bill originated due to findings that “[l]ess than 2 percent of new housing stock being built in Colorado is in the form of condos, an anomaly that developers attribute to state laws that allow condo owners to file multi-million-dollar class-action lawsuits even if only a few of them want to move forward with the legal action.” However, Molly Foley-Healy, chairwoman of the Community Associations Institute (CLAC), spoke out against the bill: “Senator Ulibarri’s stated goal is to create more affordable housing, but this bill has nothing to do with affordable housing. Instead, it hurts the very people he said he wanted to help. It effectively blocks homeowners from holding builders responsible for their shoddy construction and leaves homeowners living in HOAs to pick up the tab for repairing the defects.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Wildfire Is Efficient Proximate Cause of Moisture Reaching Expansive Soils Under Residence

    November 05, 2014 —
    The court considered whether a wildfire (covered risk) or moisture in the soils (excluded risk) was the cause of damage to the insureds' home. Encompass Ins. Co. v. Berger, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142870 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2014). In May 2009, the Jesusita Fire caused damage to the insureds' home and surrounding area. The west wall of the house was burned, causing damage to a bedroom. A shed, hot tub, wooden decks and some vegetation, including eucalyptus trees, were damaged. The insureds submitted a claim to Encompass. Eventually, Encompass spent $400,000 repairing the property. 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

    Failure to Timely File Suit in Federal Court for Flood Loss is Fatal

    June 29, 2017 —
    Although the insureds timely filed their suit for denial of flood benefits in state court, the Fourth Circuit found the lawsuit against the Insurer was untimely because it was not filed in federal district court. Woodson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2017 U. S. App. LEXIS 7862 (4th Cir. May 3 , 2917). Hurricane Irene struck the insureds' house in August 27, 2011. Their property was flooded and for several hours, subjected to wave action, allegedly causing further damage to the home. The insureds contacted Allstate, who retained Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. to inspect the property. Rimkus found that, other than a substantial loss of soil washed away around the supporting portion of the house, there was no damage to the structure of the house. Rimkus recommended reimbursement of $1200 for the washed out soil. The insureds retained House Engineering, P.C., which submitted a report describing substantial damage caused by the hurricane, including movement to the pilings that caused the house to no longer be level. The insureds claimed $228,822 in damages. 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

    Improvements to Confederate Monuments Lead to Lawsuits

    October 22, 2013 —
    Lawsuits concerning handicap access usually go toward obligating someone to provide access. But in Selma, Alabama, the city decided that handicap access to a Civil War memorial might not be all that important. The city of Selma hired KTK Mining to provide wheelchair accessibility to the city’s Memorial to the Confederate Dead and to increase security to a monument to the Confederate general Nathan Beford Forrest. After protests, the city revoked the building permit. KTM sued in federal court. The judge has ordered the two parties to a settlement contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    City and Contractor Disclaim Responsibility for Construction Error that Lead to Blast

    November 13, 2013 —
    The city of Grand Junction, Colorado and their contractor, Aperion Utility Construction, LLC, have both denied any wrongdoing in the construction accident that lead to the destruction of two homes. Aperion was drilling in order to repair traffic signals. Their drill damaged a gas line. In the subsequent explosion, three people were injured and two homes destroyed. Homes for 10 blocks were subsequently evacuated. The three men who were injured have filed a lawsuit claiming negligence on the part of the contractor and the city. The city has released a report from their insurers that concluded that the city was not responsible. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Business Risk Exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 Found Ambiguous

    April 22, 2019 —
    Reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer, the Tenth Circuit found that exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 were ambiguous as applied to the facts of the case. MTI, Inc. v. Emplrs. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2543 (10th Cir. Jan. 25, 2019). Western Farmers Electrical Cooperative (WFEC) owned cooling towers which were serviced by MTI, Inc. Wausau provided a CGL policy to MTI. In 2011, MTI found that anchor bolts in Cooling Tower 1 were corroded. WFEC hired MTI to make repairs by installing new anchor castings with anchor bolts and anchor adhesive. On May 23, 2011, MTI employees removed all of the corroded anchor bolts in Tower 1. Because the adhesive applicator had not yet arrived, MTI did not immediately install new anchor bolts. On the night of May 24, strong winds struck the tower, causing it to lean and several structural components broke. Due to the extent of the structural damage, removal and replacement of the tower was determined to be the only viable option. 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