BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut architectural 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


    Deadline for Hurricane Ian Disaster Recovery Applications Announced

    Yes, Indeedy. Competitive Bidding Not Required for School District Lease-Leasebacks

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    The Utility of Arbitration Agreements in the Construction Industry

    Conditional Judgment On Replacement Costs Awarded

    What You Need to Know About “Ipso Facto” Clauses and Their Impact on Termination of a Contractor or Subcontractor in a Bankruptcy

    Be Careful How You Terminate: Terminating for Convenience May Limit Your Future Rights

    Wake County Justice Center- a LEED Silver Project done right!

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    Arizona Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Provision Relating to Statutory Authority for Constructing and Operating Sports and Tourism Complexes

    Insurance Litigation Roundup: “Post No Bills!”

    Microsoft Said to Weigh Multibillion-Dollar Headquarters Revamp

    Transition Study a Condo Board’s First Defense against Construction Defects

    Texas Supreme Court Cements Exception to “Eight-Corners” Rule Through Two Recent Rulings

    As Laura Wreaks Havoc Along The Gulf, Is Your Insurance Ready to Respond?

    The First UK Hospital Being Built Using AI Technology

    The Prompt Payment Act Obligation is Not Triggered When the Owner Holds Less Retention from the General Contractor

    Federal Subcontractor Who Failed to Follow FAR Regulations Finds That “Fair” and “Just” are Not Synonymous

    Top 10 Hurricane Preparedness Practices for Construction Sites

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2021 New York – Metro Super Lawyers®

    Vegas Hi-Rise Not Earthquake Safe

    Another Worker Dies in Boston's Latest Construction Accident

    Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Requirements Adjusted

    Joint Venture Dispute Over Profits

    New York State Legislature Passes Legislation Expanding Wrongful Death Litigation

    Home-Rentals Wall Street Made Say Grow or Go: Real Estate

    Lack of Flood Insurance for New York’s Poorest Residents

    Colorado Court of Appeals to Rule on Arbitrability of an HOA's Construction Defect Claims

    Underpowered AC Not a Construction Defect

    Potential Problems with Cases Involving One Owner and Multiple Contractors

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    Homebuilder Immunity Act Dies in Committee. What's Next?

    Insurance Attorney Gary Barrera Joins Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group

    Workers Compensation Immunity and the Intentional Tort Exception

    The Importance of Preliminary Notices on Private Works Projects

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

    Surprising Dismissal of False Claims Act Case Based on Appointments Clause - What Does It Mean?

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle, Eric D. Suben, and Justyn Verzillo Secure Dismissal of All Claims in a Premises Liability Case

    PSA: New COVID Vaccine ETS Issued by OSHA

    Colorado House Bill 19-1170: Undefined Levels of Mold or Dampness Can Make a Leased Residential Premises Uninhabitable

    NEHRP Recommendations Likely To Improve Seismic Design

    Consumer Protections for California Residential Solar Energy Systems

    Attorneys’ Fees and the American Arbitration Association Rule

    Scary Movie: Theatre Developer Axed By Court of Appeal In Prevailing Wage Determination Challenge

    Two Years, Too Late: Time-Barred Hurricane Loss is Timely Reminder to Insureds

    Energy Company Covered for Business Interruption Losses Caused by Fire and Resulting in Town-Ordered Shutdown

    Ordinary Use of Term In Insurance Policy Prevailed

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/6/24) – Construction Tech Deals Surge, Senators Reintroduce Housing Bill, and Nonresidential Spending Drops

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

    Inverse Condemnation and Roadwork
    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. Leveraging 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

    Insured's Failure to Prove Entire Collapse of Building Leads to Dismissal

    July 19, 2021 —
    The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the insured's claim for damage to her home caused by collapse. Stewart v. Metropolitan Lloyds Ins. Co. of Texas, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 14221 (5th Girl May 13, 2021). One evening, the insured was awakened by a loud bang that shook her house. The next morning, she noticed the damage to her home, cracked sheetrock and sunken floors. She cut a hole through her floor and discovered that a couple of joists below her subfloor had broken and fallen away. The insured filed a claim with Metropolitan. Metropolitan hired an expert who found broken and deteriorated floor joists, deteriorated floor decking, walls not plumb and gaps in the wall-to-ceiling interface. It was determined that the rot in the floor joists and subfloor decking were caused by a combination of termite damage and exposure to moisture over the lifespan of the structure, resulting in the broken floor joists and unlevel floors. The insured's own expert agreed that termite damage and wood rot were the cause of the foundation collapse failure. 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

    When Are General Conditions and General Requirements Covered by Builder's Risk

    December 18, 2022 —
    General conditions and general requirements are terms of art in the construction industry that describe the indirect costs necessary to complete a construction project. After physical loss or damage to a project, the following question often arises: Are “general conditions” and “general requirements” covered under a builder’s risk policy? General Conditions vs. General Requirements General conditions are usually described as the cost of managing a construction project. Examples include salaries for personnel like project managers, supervisors, engineers, field office staff, as well as the cost of field trailers, office equipment and supplies, and anything necessary to support the staff. General requirements are the non-management indirect costs of executing the project, including items such as pre-development costs, permits, security, dumpsters, fences, temporary lighting, worker amenities, and clean-up costs. Reprinted courtesy of Michael V. Pepe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Pepe may be contacted at MPepe@sdvlaw.com Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at GHebbel@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Guide to Evaluating Snow & Ice Cases

    December 13, 2021 —
    New York, N.Y. (November 9, 2021) - As the winter season nears, defendant property owners are reminded that New York law imposes liability for sidewalk accidents resulting from slip and falls on snow and ice. Within the City of New York, Administrative Code § 7-210 imposes liability on the owners of real property (other than single-family dwellings) to maintain an abutting sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition, which includes the removal of snow and ice. Some of the most important issues in this area of the law were recently reaffirmed by New York’s Appellate Division in Zamora v. David Caccavo, LLC, 190 A.D.3d 895 (2d Dept. 2021). In particular, that the Court of Appeals made clear in 2019 that the statutory non-delegable duty to remove snow and ice from sidewalks extends even to out-of-possession landowners, who, although they may shift the work of maintaining the sidewalk to another, "cannot shift the duty, nor exposure and liability for injuries caused by negligent maintenance, imposed under [Administrative Code §] 7-210." Xiang Fu He v. Troon Mgt., Inc., 34 N.Y.3d 167, 174 (2019). In other words, even if the defendant leases the property to a tenant who is obligated under the lease to maintain the property in every way, including snow and ice on sidewalks, the defendant cannot escape liability by claiming the tenant is solely responsible for the plaintiff’s loss. On the other hand, property owners are not strictly liable for all personal injuries that occur on the abutting sidewalks, because the statute "adopts a duty and standard of care that accords with traditional tort principles of negligence and causation." Xiang Fu He v. Troon Mgt., Inc., 34 N.Y.3d at 171. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Expanded Virginia Court of Appeals Leads to Policyholder Relief

    January 29, 2024 —
    Exercising its newly expanded jurisdiction that now permits Virginia’s intermediate appellate courts to hear insurance coverage disputes, the Court of Appeals recently reversed a lower court decision that allowed a two-year “Suits Against Us” provision to serve as a basis for an insurer’s refusal to reimburse repair and replacement costs incurred more than two years after the date of loss. Bowman II v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., Record No. 1256-22-3 (Nov. 21, 2023). CAV (unpublished opinion). In the proceeding below, the circuit court found no justiciable controversy and dismissed the complaint where repairs to the policyholder’s fire-damaged home continued more than two years after the date of the fire. The circuit court relied on a two-year limitation in the policy that governed the period within which the policyholder must bring suit against the insurer. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Olivia G. Bushman, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Bushman may be contacted at obushman@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage for Contractor's Faulty Workmanship

    December 02, 2015 —
    The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals found there was no coverage for the contractor's faulty workmanship in constructing a home. State of W. Virginia ex rel. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. The Honorable Ronald E. Wilson, 2015 W. Va. LEXIS 963 (W. Va. Oct. 7, 2015). In July 2009, Fred Hlad contracted to build a home for the Nelsons and complete construction by November 2009. The Nelsons sued when the house was not timely completed. Nationwide defended under a reservation of rights, but then filed a declaratory judgment action.The circuit court denied Nationwide's request for declaratory relief, determining that the defective workmanship was an "occurrence." Nationwide petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition. On appeal, Nationwide argued that eight of the nine counts in the Nelsons' complaint were not caused by his defective workmanship. These allegations included breach of contract claims and intentional torts. Nationwide submitted it was not obligated to indemnify Hlad for damages that may be recovered on those counts. The court agreed that Nationwide's duty to indemnify was limited only to those claims that triggered coverage. Accordingly, Nationwide had no duty to indemnify for the eight counts alleging breach of contract and intentional torts. 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

    CA Supreme Court Finds “Consent-to-Assignment” Clauses Unenforceable After Loss Occurs During the Policy Period

    August 26, 2015 —
    In Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court (No. S205889; filed 8/20/15), the California Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 934, holding that notwithstanding the presence of a consent-to-assignment clause in a liability policy, Insurance Code section 520 bars an insurer from refusing to honor the insured’s assignment of coverage after a loss has taken place during the policy period. In Henkel, the Supreme Court limited the ability of corporate successors to obtain coverage under predecessors’ policies on a contract theory. The Henkel Court held that where a successor corporation contractually assumed liabilities of the predecessor corporation, the insurance benefits would not automatically follow. The Henkel Court ruled that if the predecessor company’s policy contains a consent-to-assignment clause, any assignment of insurance policy benefits to a successor corporation required the insurer’s consent. The Court said that policy benefits are not transferable choses in action unless at the time of corporate transfer they could be reduced to a monetary sum certain. The Court reasoned that historic product or environmental liabilities might not even be known to the predecessor at that time, much less reduced to a sum certain, so coverage for such risks could not be considered a transferable chose in action. Thus, where the liability was inchoate at the time of the corporate transaction, the Henkel Court said that coverage would not necessarily follow because the insurer’s duties had not yet attached. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant

    November 15, 2022 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle obtained summary judgment in favor of defendant SRI Fire Sprinkler, LLC, a family-owned and operated fire sprinkler company which generally provides fire sprinkler installation, inspection, and maintenance services throughout the Northeast and New England. The judgment was determined pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) on the grounds that Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company’s (Plaintiff) negligent construction claim accrued on the date when work was completed at the premises, not on the date of the incident as alleged in the Plaintiff’s complaint. In the underlying subrogation action, the Plaintiff commenced the action in subrogation of its insured, Bet Am Shalom Synagogue (Bet Am), to recover damages in excess of $173,390.86 which it allegedly paid to Bet Am for water damage cleanup and remodeling after certain sprinkler pipes froze and burst in the recently constructed wing of the Westchester synagogue on January 1, 2019 and January 7, 2019. The Plaintiff alleged that its subrogor, Bet Am, sustained interior water damage on the first floor and basement levels of the premises, including the carpets, drywall, insulation, bathroom, kitchen and appliances, dining room, hallways, closets, basement storage rooms and supplies, and basement classrooms. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
    Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com

    Calling the Shots

    May 03, 2021 —
    As of 2019, women accounted for 10% of the total construction workforce. That’s 1.2 million women in the field, sculpting the built environment and calling the shots. A smaller percentage of the industry’s population does not mean less ability to achieve success. According to The National Association of Women in Construction, 44% of women in construction serve in a professional and management capacity. As the pandemic lingers on, sourcing qualified candidates is becoming more difficult, and finding nuanced methods of retaining valuable employees remains at the forefront of modern business. One estimate cites a loss of 600,000 women from the overall U.S. workforce in September 2020. However, data suggest that construction employment for women has remained steady, compared with struggling sectors such as retail and hospitality. Plus, salary disparities are becoming less prominent in the construction sector where, according to NAWIC, women earn 99.1% of what men make, and the female population has seen steady growth since 2012. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of