BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildings
    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


    California Supreme Court Adopts Vertical Exhaustion for Long-Tail Claims

    Carrier Has Duty to Defend Claim for Active Malfunction of Product

    Arkansas: Avoiding the "Made Whole" Doctrine Through Dépeçage

    Point Taken: The UK Supreme Court Finally Confirms the General Law of Liquidated Damages (LDs)

    The Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter – A Year in Review

    Green Investigations Are Here: U.S. Department of Justice Turns Towards Environmental Enforcement Actions, Deprioritizes Compliance Assistance

    Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<

    Arbitration: For Whom the Statute of Limitations Does Not Toll in Pennsylvania

    Is an Initial Decision Maker, Project Neutral, or Dispute Resolution Board Right for You?

    NJ Court Reaffirms Rule Against Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims and Finds Fraud Claims Inherently Intentional

    Appraisal Process Analyzed

    When an Insurer Proceeds as Subrogee, Defendants Should Not Assert Counterclaims Against the Insured/Subrogor

    Ensuring Efficient Arbitration of Construction Disputes Involving Mechanic’s Liens

    Flying Solo: How it Helps My Construction Clients

    The Law Clinic Paves Way to the Digitalization of Built Environment Processes

    Encinitas Office Obtains Complete Defense Verdict Including Attorney Fees and Costs After Ten Day Construction Arbitration

    Pay Loss Provision Does Not Preclude Assignment of Post-Loss Claim

    Cincinnati Team Secures Summary Judgment for Paving Company in Trip-and-Fall Case

    City of Pawtucket Considering Forensic Investigation of Tower

    Conn. Appellate Court Overturns Jury Verdict, Holding Plaintiff’s Sole Remedy for Injuries Arising From Open Manhole Was State’s Highway Defect Statute

    French President Vows to Rebuild Fire-Collapsed Notre Dame Roof and Iconic Spire

    Intentionally Set Atlanta Interstate Fire Closes Artery Until June

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at a Faster Pace in October

    Colorado Drillers Show Sensitive Side to Woo Fracking Foes

    Construction Manager Has Defense As Additional Insured

    Homeowner's Claim for Collapse Survives Summary Judgment

    New Jersey Construction Worker Sentenced for Home Repair Fraud

    That Boilerplate Language May Just Land You in Hot Water

    From Both Sides Now: Looking at Contracts Through a Post-Pandemic Lens

    A Court-Side Seat: SCOTUS Clarifies Alien Tort Statute and WOTUS Is Revisited

    South Carolina Supreme Court Requires Transparency by Rejecting an Insurer’s “Cut-and-Paste” Reservation of Rights

    Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Secures Summary Judgment Win for National Hotel Chain

    Force Majeure Recommendations

    Prefabrication Contract Considerations

    Crumbling Roadways Add Costs to Economy, White House Says

    Fifth Circuit Requires Causal Distinction for Ensuing Loss Exception to Faulty Work Exclusion

    Certificates of Merit: Is Your Texas Certificate Sufficient?

    Don’t Believe Everything You Hear: Liability of Asbestos Pipe Manufacturer Upheld Despite Exculpatory Testimony of Plaintiff

    SB800 Not the Only Remedy for Construction Defects

    Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Case Involving a Wedding Guest Injured in a Fall

    The ALI Restatement – What Lies Ahead?

    Graham & Who May Trigger The Need To Protest

    Congratulations to all of our 2023 Attorneys Named as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Statutory Bad Faith and an Insured’s 60 Day Notice to Cure

    Drafting a Contractual Arbitration Provision

    The Importance of the Subcontractor Exception to the “Your Work” Exclusion

    Thanks for the Super Lawyers Nod for 2019!

    ZLien Startup has Discovered a Billion in Payments for Clients

    Thanks for Four Years of Recognition from JD Supra’s Readers’ Choice Awards

    Building a Case: Document Management for Construction Litigation
    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

    Policy Lanuage Expressly Prohibits Replacement of Undamaged Material to Match Damaged Material

    March 09, 2020 —
    Construing an all-risk Businessowners Policy, the court found that the policy language did not required replacement of undamaged material match materials that were damaged. Pleasure Creek Townhomes Homeowners' Ass'n v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 2019 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1095 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2019). The policy covered the Association's 14 townhome buildings. In June 2017, a hail storm damaged siding on all 14 buildings. An appraisal panel included the cost to replace the undamaged, faded siding in its appraisal award so that it would match the new siding. American Family refused to pay this component - which was appraised at about $211,382 - of the award. An exclusion in the policy provided,
    We will not pay to repair or replace undamaged material due to mismatch between undamaged material and new material used to repair or replace damaged material.
    We do not cover the loss in value to an property due to mismatch between undamaged material and new material used to repair or replace damaged material.
    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

    SEC Climate Change Disclosure Letter Foreshadows Anticipated Regulatory Changes

    November 08, 2021 —
    Washington, D.C. (October 13, 2021) - In late September 2021, the Division of Corporation Finance of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a Sample Letter providing guidance to companies on how their climate disclosures will be analyzed for compliance with material risk reporting obligations. The Sample Letter precedes the SEC’s issuance of mandatory climate-related disclosure rules anticipated by year-end and signals a greater focus on specific information used to support securities filings, a development that businesses should take seriously. The Sample Letter builds on climate change guidance the SEC issued in 2010 and identifies nine categories of disclosures the SEC suggests may be material risks that must be disclosed. These include:
    • Consistency between a company’s corporate social responsibility report and its SEC filings;
    • Risks associated with climate-related legislation, regulation, or policy, and resulting compliance costs;
    • Litigation risks related to climate change; and
    • Risks linked to an array of operational and market factors, including capital expenditures, continuity of business operations, supply chain stability, changing demand, reputation, availability of credit and insurance, and other climate-change related potential impacts on the financial condition of the company.
    Reprinted courtesy of Karen C. Bennett, Lewis Brisbois and Jane C. Luxton, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Of Pavement and Pandemic: Liability and Regulatory Hurdles for Taking It Outside

    September 21, 2020 —
    As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to ravage the U.S. economy, restaurateurs and bar owners are feeling the brunt of business closures and adaptations necessary to combat the disease. Where cozy and intimate dining was once de rigueur for the restaurant industry, these businesses must now shift to outdoor dining with adequate space and airflow between parties. In response to these concerns, many cities across the country who once fought against the loss of any parking have turned to a post-automobile tactic: outdoor dining in thoroughfares and parking lots. While at first glance it might seem a simple enough prospect—throw some chairs and a table out front, and voilà—property owners and restaurateurs must remain cognizant of various liability and regulatory hurdles for operating outside. With Great Space Comes Great … Potential Liability. One of the largest concerns for landowners in operating in a new space for business is liability. Who is on the hook if someone gets hurt dining in an impromptu dining space in a parking lot? Prior to beginning new outdoor dining operations, landowners and restaurateurs should contact their insurance providers to ensure that the new space is included in their insurance coverage. This is a particular concern for larger commercial landowners who may have various businesses vying to use their parking lot for business. Many leases have carefully crafted clauses limiting where a business may operate and where their liability ceases. Landowners and business owners should review their leases for any such clauses and negotiate with one another to ensure that liability in these new spaces is clearly defined. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Clare, Pillsbury
    Mr. Clare may be contacted at jeff.clare@pillsburylaw.com

    Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage

    January 05, 2017 —
    Washington Courts allow an insurer to determine its duty to defend an insured against a lawsuit based only on the face of the complaint and the limitations of the insurance policy. This is otherwise known as the “eight corners” rule (four corners of the complaint plus the four corners of the policy). In other words, the insurance company is not permitted to rely on facts extrinsic to the complaint in order to deny its duty to defend an insured. See Truck Ins. Exch. v. VanPort Homes, Inc., 147 Wn.2d 751, 763 (2002). The laws in Washington provide greater protection to the insured over the insurer when it comes to the insurer’s duty to defend. The duty to defend a claim is triggered if a claim could “conceivably” be covered under the policy. See Woo v. Fireman’s Insurance, 161 Wn.2d 43 (2007). If there is any ambiguity in a policy with regard to coverage, the ambiguity is interpreted in favor of the insured. As a result, contractors in Washington regularly tender claims or potential claims to their insurers even when damage has not occurred but will occur in the imminent future. Especially in the context of construction defect cases, a contractor will tender such a claim to its insurer to trigger the broad duty of the insurer to provide a defense. We also regularly recommend this to our contractor clients. For example, if a building owner serves a contractor with a claim that the construction and installation of a window system will imminently cause leaks and corrosion, we would recommend that the contractor tender the claim to its commercial general liability insurer. Washington courts have found a duty to defend when there are allegations in the complaint that covered damages will occur in the imminent future. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Masaki J. Yamada, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Yamada may be contacted at myamada@ac-lawyers.com

    It’s Getting Harder and Harder to be a Concrete Supplier in California

    December 04, 2018 —
    In 2015, the California state legislature passed AB 219, which amended the state’s prevailing wage law to add Labor Code section 1720.9, which requires the payment of prevailing wages to “ready-mixed concrete” drivers on state and local public works projects. Ready-mixed concrete suppliers filed suit in Allied Concrete and Supply Co. v. Baker (September 20, 2018) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the law on the ground that, because AB 219 singled out ready-mixed concrete drivers but not other drivers of materials on state and local public works projects, the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    HVAC System Collapses Over Pool at Gaylord Rockies Resort Colorado

    June 12, 2023 —
    The collapse May 6 of the HVAC system above an indoor pool at the Gaylord Rockies Resort near Denver sent six people to local hospitals, two with life-threatening injuries. An estimated 50 to 100 people were in the water or on the pool deck as pieces of the system fell into the pool and hot tub. Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Seward, Engineering News-Record Ms. Seward may be contacted at sewardj@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Existing U.S. Home Sales Rise to Second-Highest Since 2007

    October 28, 2015 —
    Sales of previously owned U.S. homes rebounded in September to the second-highest level since February 2007, the latest sign that the recovery in residential real estate will support growth in the world’s largest economy. Closings on existing homes, which usually occur a month or two after a contract is signed, climbed 4.7 percent to a 5.55 million annualized rate, the National Association of Realtors said Thursday. The increase was entirely due to a jump in purchases of single-family dwellings. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Victoria Stilwell, Bloomberg

    Standard For Evaluating Delay – Directly from An Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeal’s Opinion

    October 04, 2021 —
    Sometimes, it is much better to hear it from the horse’s mouth. That is the case here. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeal’s (ASBCA) opinion in Appeals of -GSC Construction, Inc., ASBCA No. 59402, 2020 WL 8148687 (ASBCA November 4, 2020) includes an informative discussion of a contractor’s burden when it encounters excusable delay and, of importance, the standard for evaluating delay. It’s a long discussion but one that parties in construction need to know, appreciate, and understand. EVERY WORD IN THIS DISCUSSION MATTERS. Construction projects get delayed and with a delay comes money because time is money. Many claims are predicated on delay. These can be an owner assessing liquidated damages due to a delayed job or a contractor seeking its costs for delay. Either way, the standard for evaluating delay and the burdens imposed on a party cannot be understated and, certainly, cannot be overlooked. For this reason, here is the discussion on evaluating delay directly from the horse’s mouth in the Appeal of-GSC Construction, Inc.:
    The critical path is the longest path in the schedule on which any delay or disruption would cause a day-for-day delay to the project itself; those activities must be performed as they are scheduled and timely in order for the project to finish on time. Wilner v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 241, 245 (1991). In Yates-Desbuild Joint Venture, CBCA No. 3350 et al., 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,870, our sister board compiled an excellent and very helpful synopsis of the standards for evaluating delay claims, which I adopt nearly verbatim among the discussion that follows.
    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