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


    Toolbox Talk Series Recap - Guided Choice Mediation

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (4/10/24) – Hotels Integrate AI, Baby-Boomers Stay Put, and Insurance Affects Housing Market

    2013 May Be Bay Area’s Best Year for Commercial Building

    Skanska Found Negligent for Damages From Breakaway Barges

    Construction Site Blamed for Flooding

    CDJ’s #9 Topic of the Year: Nevada Supreme Court Denies Class Action Status in Construction Defect Case

    Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Declines to Eight-Month Low

    Presidential Memorandum Promotes Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West

    Unfortunate Event Test Leads to Three Occurrences

    Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury

    Revisiting OSHA’s Controlling Employer Policy

    Replacement of Gym Floor Due to Sloppy Paint Job is Not Resulting Loss

    Erdogan Vows to Punish Shoddy Builders Ahead of Crucial Election

    GA Federal Court Holds That Jury, Not Judge, Generally Must Decide Whether Notice Was Given “As Soon as Practicable” Under First-Party Property Damage Policies

    Predicting the Future of Texas’s Grid Is a Texas-Sized Challenge

    Green Energy Can Complicate Real Estate Foreclosures

    Packard Condominiums Settled with Kosene & Kosene Residential

    Everyone's Moving to Seattle, and It's Stressing Out Sushi Lovers

    Building Codes Evolve With High Wind Events

    Claims for Negligence? Duty to Defend Triggered

    Workers on Big California Bridge Tackle Oil Wells, Seismic Issues

    Is the Event You Are Claiming as Unforeseeable Delay Really Unforeseeable?

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    The Final Frontier Opens Up New Business Opportunities for Private Contractors

    Party Loses Additional Insured Argument by Improper Pleading

    Miller Act and “Public Work of the Federal Government”

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Issues to Watch Out for When Managing Remote Workers

    Substantial Completion Explained: What Contractors & Owners Should Know

    Nuclear Energy Gets a Much-Needed Boost

    Fifth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment Award to Insurer on Hurricane Damage Claim

    Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Matching of Materials Decided by Appraisers

    Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment On Ground Not Asserted By Moving Party Upheld

    Nebraska Joins the Ranks—No CGL Coverage for Faulty Work

    Supreme Court of Washington State Upholds SFAA Position on Spearin Doctrine

    Constructing a New American Dream

    Sellers of South Florida Mansion Failed to Disclose Construction Defects

    Housing-Related Spending Makes Up Significant Portion of GDP

    Construction Defect Leads to Death, Jury Awards $39 Million

    Climate-Proofing Your Home: Upgrades to Weather a Drought

    California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase “Ongoing Operations” In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations

    What Buyers Want in a Green Home—and What They Don’t

    Eye on Housing Examines Costs of Green Features

    Cable-Free Elevators Will Soar to New Heights, and Move Sideways

    Florida Supreme Court: Notice of Right to Repair is a CGL “Suit,” SDV Amicus Brief Supports Decision

    Forethought Is Key to Overcoming Construction Calamities

    In Phoenix, Crews Thread Needle With $730M Broadway Curve Revamp

    Subcontractor Strikes Out in its Claims Against Federal Government

    Florida’s Fourth District Appeals Court Clarifies What Actions Satisfy Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    UPDATE: Texas Federal Court Permanently Enjoins U.S. Department of Labor “Persuader Rule” Requiring Law Firms and Other Consultants to Disclose Work Performed for Employers on Union Organization Efforts
    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

    Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    December 09, 2019 —
    Recently, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that structural damages to the foundation of an insured’s home came within the earth movement exclusion in a homeowner’s policy, notwithstanding a provision in the policy which provided coverage for water damage resulting “from accidental discharge or overflow of water … from within … [p]lumbing, heating, air condition or household appliance.” In Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 264 So. 3d 737 (Miss. 2019), the appellee, Smith, filed a lawsuit against her homeowner's insurance company, Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (“Farm Bureau”) for its refusal to pay for repairs to the foundation of Smith’s home. Smith alleged that the refusal to pay for repairs amounted to breach of contract and asserted claims for bad faith and tortious breach of contract. In response, Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of the policy’s earth-movement exclusion, which provided that Farm Bureau “did not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by…Earth Movement…[which] means…[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting... caused by or resulting from human or animal forces.” Smith filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the basis that the earth-movement exclusion did not preclude coverage because her insurance policy also contained a clause expressly covering water damage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony Hatzilabrou, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Hatzilabrou may be contacted at thatzilabrou@tlsslaw.com

    South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies

    April 01, 2011 —

    The question of what circumstances must be in place for construction defects to be covered in a general commercial liability (CGL) policies is being raised by the courts and the legislature in South Carolina. The Insurance Journal reports that the American Insurance Association as well as the Property and Casualty Insurers Association of America are speaking out on the issue.

    The problem seems to be centered on what defines an “occurrence.” CGL policies were not meant to cover faulty workmanship, according to the filing by the South Carolina Supreme Court. In January of this year, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the ruling in Crossmann Communities v Harleysville Mutual declaring that “Respondents cannot show the damage here was the result of an occurrence. Rather, the damage was a direct result and the natural and expected consequence of faulty workmanship; faulty workmanship did not cause an occurrence resulting in damage.” They focused their attention on the word “accident,” stating that there is a fortuity element that is not diminished.

    The South Carolina legislature reacted by producing a bill that would add new language directly negating the ruling by the Supreme Court. The South Carolina bill S-431 would change the definition of an occurrence in regards to construction defects as follows: “For a liability insurance policy issued to a construction professional, an ‘occurrence’ means, at a minimum: (1) an accident; or (2) continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful condition or substance. No additional requirement of a fortuitous event is needed to constitute an ‘occurrence.’”

    S-431 is currently residing in the House Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

    Read the full story...

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

    Caltrans to Speak before California Senate regarding Bay Bridge Expansion

    August 06, 2014 —
    The San Francisco Chronicle reported that at an upcoming California Senate hearing, Caltrans is expected to defend itself against “allegations that they ‘gagged and banished’ engineers who identified construction problems on the new Bay Bridge eastern span and that the agency failed to maintain basic quality control on the project.” Members of the “Senate Transportation and Housing Committee will question Caltrans Director Malcolm Dougherty, other state officials and the head of the bridge's lead contractor, American Bridge/Fluor, about two reports last week from an investigator and a panel of six engineers who were critical of how the $6.4 billion project was managed.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Practical Pointers for Change Orders on Commercial Construction Contracts

    December 31, 2014 —
    Construction projects pose unique challenges, including keeping costs within budget, meeting project deadlines, and coordinating the work of numerous contractors and subcontractors in the wake of inevitable design revisions and changes to the plans. Anticipating potential project challenges and negotiating contract provisions before commencing work on a project is critical for all parties. Careful planning should reduce the number of contract disputes. This, in turn, can facilitate the completion of a project within budget and on schedule. “Changes” Clauses in Construction Contracts Most commercial construction contracts have a clause addressing changes to the contract. A “changes” clause typically requires the mutual agreement of the parties on the scope of any modifications to the contract, as well as the effect on the contract price and timeframe for the work to be performed. This results in what is generally referred to as a “change order.” Many projects have a large number of change orders, which can result in significant cost overruns and delays to the project if the contract contains a complicated change order process. Therefore, in order to minimize cost overruns and project delays, it is crucial to keep the change order process as simplified and streamlined as possible. In the most basic terms, change orders memorialize modifications to the original contract, and typically alter the contract's price, scope of work, and/or completion dates. A typical change order is a written document prepared by the owner or its design professional, and signed by the owner, design professional, and affected contractors and subcontractors. An executed change order indicates the parties’ agreement as to what changes are taking place, including approval for additional costs and schedule impacts. While the reasons for change orders and the parties initiating them may vary, all change orders have one feature in common. Effective change orders alter the original contract and become part of the contract. Therefore, from a legal standpoint, change orders must be approached with the same caution and forethought as the original contract. Practice Pointers for Change Orders In light of the foregoing, some practice pointers for change orders in commercial construction contracts are as follows:
    • Carefully Negotiate and Draft Change Order Provisions in the Original Contract. A carefully negotiated and drafted “changes” clause that accounts for “unexpected circumstances” or “hidden conditions” can protect the parties from downstream costly disputes.
    • Immediately Address Changes by Following the Change Order Process, Including Obtaining Necessary Signatures. Regardless if you are an owner, general contractor or subcontractor, you should address any proposed change order immediately. Even if a decision maker gives “verbal” approval to go ahead with changed work, the work should not proceed without following the change order process in the original contract. This includes making sure to obtain any necessary signatures for the change order, if at all possible.
    • Analyze the Plans and Specifications to Determine Whether “Changes” are Within the Scope of the Original Contract, or Whether They are Extra Work. Prior to entering an original contract, it is imperative that the parties review the plans and specifications for ambiguities regarding work included in the original contract, versus potential extra work that would require a change order. This is important because a careful review of the plans and specifications sometimes reveals that work believed to be a change order is, in fact, original work, or vice versa.
    • Make Sure Requests and Approvals for Change Orders are Done by an Authorized Representative. When a party requests or gives its approval to a change order, it is important to confirm the request or approval came from an authorized representative.
    • Avoid Vague and Open-Ended Change Orders. Indeed, the vaguer a change order, the more likely it can lead to a dispute. Vague and open-ended change orders, including change orders that provide for payment on a time and materials basis, can be difficult for an owner to budget and schedule. This can lead to disputes as to cost and/or time extensions.
    • Oral Assurances for Payment Without a Signed Change Order May Not Be Recoverable. When a party provides verbal assurances to another party for extra work without following the change order process, there is a much higher likelihood that disputes will occur. Although there is case law that may allow a contractor to recover for extra work in private contracts based on oral promises, the parties should avoid placing themselves in such a legal position. Notably, in public contracts, a contractor may not be able to recover for any extra work without a signed changed order, even with verbal assurances of payment from the owner.
    About the Author: John E. Bowerbank, Newmeyer & Dillion Mr. Bowerbank is a partner in the Newport Beach office and practices in the areas of business, insurance, real estate, and construction litigation. You can reach John at john.bowerbank@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Certified Question Asks Washington Supreme Court Whether Insurer is Bound by Contradictory Certificate of Insurance

    January 21, 2019 —
    The Ninth Circuit certified a question to the Washington Supreme Court as follows:
    Under Washington law, is an insurer bound by representations made by its authorized agent in a certificate of insurance with respect to a party's status as an additional insured under a policy issued by the insurer, when the certificate includes language disclaiming its authority and ability to expand coverage?
    T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co lf Am., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31863 (9th Cir. Nov. 9, 2018). In 2010, T-Mobile entered into a Field Services Agreement (FSA) with Innovative Engineering, Inc. under which Innovative would provide services in connection with the construction of rooftop cellular antennae towers in New York City. The FSA required Innovative to maintain general liability insurance naming T-Mobile as an additional insured, and required that Innovative provide T-Mobile with certificates of insurance documenting the coverage. Innovative obtained coverage from Selective Insurance Company of America. 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

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Who Needs Them”

    August 28, 2023 —
    Who needs them? So argued a surety pursuing recovery under its general agreement of indemnity when the indemnitors urged a Louisiana federal court to dismiss the surety’s complaint for failure to join various allegedly required parties as defendants in the litigation. As part of its court action, the surety moved for preliminary injunction to enforce its collateral security rights. In response thereto, the indemnitors informed the court that if the injunction were to be granted, the indemnitors would “be forced to sell assets that are encumbered by security interests senior to those held by” the surety. In connection therewith, the indemnitors demanded that the other creditors be joined in the action or the lawsuit dismissed. The indemnitors also urged that the public project owner be joined as a party because the surety was seeking proceeds from the project that were still in the possession of the project owner. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Ohio Condo Development Case Filed in 2011 is Scheduled for Trial

    April 09, 2014 —
    In a recent hearing regarding the Cleveland, Ohio case Stonebridge Towers Homeowners v K&D Group, Judge John O’Donnell scheduled a trial for May 28th. Lead attorney for the homeowners stated that they would settle for “ten million and change,” according to The Plain Dealer. However, an attorney for K&D Group retorted that “the damaged condos could be fixed for much less money.” “The lawsuit claims negligent design, poor construction and multiple defects resulted from fraud and bribe-paying by the developers,” reported Plain Dealer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The CA Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review of McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.) As to Whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the Exclusive Remedy for All Defect Claims Arising Out of New Residential Construction

    December 02, 2015 —
    As anticipated in a prior CGDRB 2015 Bulletin that discussed the Fifth Appellate District Court’s noteworthy opinion in McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist), the California Supreme Court has granted the petition for review of the McMillin Albany decision. The Supreme Court will attempt to resolve the conflict of authority presented by the Fourth Appellate District Court’s opinion in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 and the Fifth Appellate District Court’s rejection of the Liberty Mutual holding in McMillin Albany. In Liberty Mutual, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that compliance with SB800’s pre-litigation procedures prior to initiating litigation is only required for defect claims [violations of SB 800’s building standards] that have not yet resulted in actual property damage. Where damage has occurred, a homeowner may initiate litigation under common law causes of action without first complying with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in SB 800. Two years later, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in McMillin Albany, held that the California Legislature intended that all construction defect claims arising out new residential construction are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act [SB800], including specifically, the requirement that the claimant provide the builder with notice and an opportunity to repair prior to filing a lawsuit. According to the Court, SB 800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. The holdings in Liberty Mutual and McMillin Albany present a conflict of authority that the California Supreme Court has appropriately deemed worthy of review. The parties will now be permitted to file briefs on the merits and amicus briefs will certainly be submitted by the defense and plaintiff bars. Our firm will be closely monitoring this case, the outcome of which will significantly impact pre-litigation construction defect claims going forward. We will provide updates as to further activities and the Supreme Court’s decision. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Glenn T. Barger, Jon A. Turigliatto and David A. Napper Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of