BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code 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


    Architect Named Grand Custom Home Winner for Triangular Design

    Florida's New Pre-Suit Notification Requirement: Retroactive or Prospective Application?

    Newmeyer & Dillion Appoints Partner Carol Zaist as General Counsel

    ETF Bulls Bet Spring Will Thaw the U.S. Housing Market

    OSHA Launches Program to Combat Trenching Accidents

    Andrea DeField Recognized In 2024 List of Influential Business Women By South Florida Business Journal

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    Connecticut Grapples With Failing Concrete Foundations

    Brief Discussion of Enforceability of Anti-Indemnity Statutes in California

    Building Codes Evolve With High Wind Events

    DRCOG’s Findings on the Impact of Construction Defect Litigation Have Been Released (And the Results Should Not Surprise You)

    Approaching Design-Build Projects to Avoid (or Win) Disputes

    Pennsylvania Modernizes State Building Code

    Governmental Action Exclusion Bars Claim for Damage to Insured's Building

    The Future of High-Rise is Localized and Responsive

    Winners Announced in Seattle’s Office-to-Residential Call for Ideas Contest

    Construction Defect Risks Shifted to Insurers in 2013

    Windstorm Exclusion Found Ambiguous

    FIFA May Reduce World Cup Stadiums in Russia on Economic Concern

    PSA: Virginia Repeals Its Permanent COVID-19 Safety Standard

    Deference Given To Procuring Public Agency Regarding Material Deviation

    Reduce Suicide Risk Among Employees in Remote Work Areas

    Home Prices Up, Inventory Down

    Construction Defect Settlement in Seattle

    Former Owner Not Liable for Defects Discovered After Sale

    Contractor Beware: Design-Build Firms Must Review Washington’s Licensing Requirements

    Best Practices After Receiving Notice of a Construction Claim

    Insurance Litigation Roundup: “Post No Bills!”

    Housing Sales Hurt as Fewer Immigrants Chase Owner Dream

    Las Vegas Team Obtains Complete Dismissal of a Traumatic Brain Injury Claim

    Death of Subcontractor’s Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Project Owner

    Mediating is Eye Opening

    1st District Joins 2nd District Court of Appeals and Holds that One-Year SOL Applies to Disgorgement Claims

    San Francisco Office Secures Defense Verdict in Legal Malpractice Action

    Congress Addresses Homebuilding Credit Crunch

    Investigation of Orange County Landslide

    Can I Record a Lis Pendens in Arizona if the Lawsuit is filed Another Jurisdiction?

    First-Time Homebuyers Make Biggest Share of Deals in 17 Years

    The Practical Distinction Between Anticipatory Breach and Repudiation and How to Deal with Both on Construction Projects

    Five Keys to Driving Digital Transformation in Engineering and Construction

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorney Alan Packer Selected to the 2017 Northern California Super Lawyers List

    Litigation Roundup: “You Can’t Make Me Pay!”

    Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

    California Fire Lawyers File Suit Against PG&E on Behalf of More Than 50 Wildfire Victims

    Challenging and Defending a California Public Works Stop Payment Notice: Affidavit vs. Counter-Affidavit Process

    Environmental Regulatory Provisions Embedded in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Breath of Fresh Air

    ‘The Ground Just Gave Out’: How a Storm’s Fury Ravaged Asheville

    Florida Duty to Defend a Chapter 558 Right to Repair Notice

    Seattle Developer Defaults on Renovated Office Buildings
    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

    Former Superintendent Sentenced in Rhode Island Tainted Fill Case

    July 05, 2023 —
    A federal judge sentenced a contractor’s former superintendent June 20 for misleading officials about the source of fill and quality of contaminated fill used on the $410 million Route 6/10 interchange project in Rhode Island. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Claims against Broker for Insufficient Coverage Fail

    May 10, 2021 —
    After a coverage dispute for damage caused by Hurricane Harvey was settled, the insured's claims against its insurance broker for providing insufficient coverage were dismissed. Hitchcock Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57452 (S.D. Texas Feb. 26, 2021). The School District suffered $3.5 million in property damage after Hurricane Harvey struck. Its insurers denied coverage and the School District sued. During the litigation, the School District learned that the policies contained an arbitration clause and a New York choice of law provision. Rather than pursue its claims in arbitration, the School District settled with its insurers and sued its broker for failing to obtain insurance without arbitration or choice of law provisions. The broker moved to dismiss The School District claimed that it had to settle with the insurers for less than what it would have settled had the arbitration and choice of law provisions not been in its policies. The court found this novel theory to be based upon pure speculation 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

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dispose of Hail Damage Claim Fails

    November 25, 2024 —
    The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the insured's complaint requesting coverage for hail damage and a claim for bad faith. Rodriquez v. State Farm Lloyds, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160007 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2024). Mr. Rodriquez sought coverage under his homeowners policy after a hail and wind storm damaged his roof. After inspection, State Farm agreed that some minimal loss caused by hail was covered, but determined that the covered loss was less than the amount of the deductible. State Farm further determined that any hail damage to the roof was excluded by an endorsement, Exclusion of Cosmetic Loss to Metal Roof Coverings Caused by Hail. State Farm also determined that some damage was caused by previous faulty workmanship or wear and tear, both of which were excluded from coverage. 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

    Heads I Win, Tails You Lose. Court Finds Indemnity Provision Went Too Far

    May 25, 2020 —
    We all love David and Goliath stories. The underdog winning against the far stronger (and dastardly) opponent. Think Rocky Balboa versus Ivan Drago, the Star Wars Rebellion versus the Galatic Empire, Indiana Jones versus a good chunk of the Third Reich. And now, we have Margaret Williams. The Story of Margaret Williams and her LLC The story, told in Long Beach Unified School District v. Margaret Williams, LLC, Case No. B290069 (December 9, 2019), is about Margaret Williams. Ms. Williams (we’ll just call her “Margaret” going forward because it just sounds better when telling a story) worked for nearly ten years full-time for the Long Beach Unified School District, toiling day in and day out doing construction management and environmental compliance work, including work involving the clean up of material at a school construction site contaminated with arsenic. Although she worked full-time for the District for nearly ten years, she wasn’t an employee. Rather, she was a contractor. And, on top of it all, as a condition of working for the District, the District required that she form a company in order to contract with the District. According to Margaret, “In order to work with the District, I was directed . . . to form a corporation or partnership. This was the only way I could work for the District: I could not enter into a contract with the District as an individual.” So, in 2006, she formed a company, simply called Margaret Williams, LLC. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Dispute Resolution Provision in Subcontract that Says Owner, Architect or Engineer’s Decision Is Final

    March 29, 2021 —
    In subcontracts, it is not uncommon to see a provision that says something to the effect: Should any dispute arise between the parties respecting the true construction or interpretation of the Plans, Specifications and/or the Contract Requirements, the decision of the Owner or the Owner’s designated representative as set forth in the General Contract shall be final. This is a provision in a subcontract dealing with dispute resolution, typically when there is a dispute as to whether the subcontractor is performing extra-contractual or base contract work regarding an “interpretation of the Plans, Specifications, and/or the Contract Requirements.” It is not uncommon for there to be a dispute as to whether certain work is within the subcontractor’s scope of work or outside the subcontractor’s scope of work and subject to a change order. 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

    New Jersey Legislation Would Bar Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause in Homeowners' Policies

    June 08, 2020 —
    A bill prohibiting the use of anti-concurrent causation clauses in homeowners' insurance policies has been introduced before the New Jersey legislature. The bill is here. Under an anti-concurrent causation clause, the policy bars coverage if two perils (i.e., wind and water damage) contribute to a loss and one peril is excluded from coverage. For example, wind damage alone may be covered, while water damage is excluded. If both wind and water contribute to the loss, regardless of the degree to which each peril contributes, the anti-concurrent causation clause would bar coverage. New Jersey S 217 states,
    An insurer authorized to transact the business of homeowners insurance in this state shall not exclude coverage in a homeowners insurance policy for loss or damage caused by a peril insured against under the terms of the policy on the grounds that the loss or damage occurred concurrently or in any sequence with a peril not insured against under the terms of the policy. Any such provision to exclude coverage shall be void and unenforceable.
    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

    Res Judicata Bars Insured from Challenging Insurer's Use of Schedule to Deduct Depreciation from the Loss

    June 10, 2024 —
    The insured was barred by res judicata from filing a second lawsuit challenging the insurer's method of establishing the amount of the loss. Burke v. GeoVera Spec. Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 9186 (5th Cir, April 16, 2024). On August 29, 2021, Hurricane Ida caused wind damage to the Burkes' home. They filed a claim with their insurer, GeoVera Specialty, and received payment. In calculating the payment, GeoVera Specialty adjusted the damage claim pursuant to its Roof System Payment Schedule, which lists the criteria used in reducing roof damage claims based on depreciation. Based on that schedule, GeoVera Specialty reduced the roof damage component of the Burkes' claim by forty-eight percent. In March 2022, the Burkes filed suit alleging that GeoVera Specialty undervalued their claim. On September 8, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the lawsuit after reaching a settlement, which the district court granted. 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

    Louisiana Couple Claims Hurricane Revealed Construction Defects

    January 22, 2013 —
    A Louisiana couple has sued the company that raised their home, claiming that faults with the work were revealed after Hurricane Isaac hit the home. Crescent City Construction raised the Marcev’s home in 2006. They were satisfied with the work until the 2012 hurricane. The Marcevs claim in their suit that the work is covered by a ten-year warranty. They are suing for a full refund of their payments to Crescent City Construction, as well as architectural fees, damages, interest, and attorney costs. Their claim is that as a result of the work, their home now has structural defects and fails to meet building codes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of