BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expert
    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


    Ben L. Aderholt Joins Coats Rose Construction Litigation Group

    California Rejects Judgments By Confession Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1132

    Lewis Brisbois Listed as Top 10 Firm of 2022 on Leopard Solutions Law Firm Index

    Civility Is Key in Construction Defect Mediation

    Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm

    After $15 Million Settlement, Association Gets $7.7 Million From Additional Subcontractor

    Connecticut Supreme Court Again Asked to Determine the Meaning of Collapse

    Bidder Be Thoughtful: The Impacts of Disclaimers in Pre-Bid Reports

    Big Changes and Trends in the Real Estate Industry

    Construction Defect Bill Introduced in California

    Not All Work is Covered Under the Federal Miller Act

    Property Insurance Exclusion for Constant or Repeated Leakage of Water

    Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement

    Coverage Denied for Insured's Defective Product

    Court Rules in Favor of Treasure Island Developers in Environmental Case

    Australia Warns of Multi-Billion Dollar Climate Disaster Costs

    Tennessee Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade

    Dear Engineer: Has your insurer issued a “Reservation of Rights” letter? (law note)

    How the Election Could Affect the Housing Industry: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    Contract, Breach of Contract, and Material Breach of Contract

    Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

    The Roads to Justice: Building New Bridges

    Athens, Ohio, Sues to Recover Nearly $722,000 After Cyber Attack

    Fifth Circuit Certifies Eight-Corners Duty to Defend Issue to Texas Supreme Court

    City Wonders Who’s to Blame for Defective Wall

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Trigger and Allocation

    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

    Manhattan Home Prices Jump to a Record as Buyers Compete

    May Heat Wave Deaths Prompt New Cooling Rules in Chicago

    Musk Says ‘Chicago Express’ Tunnel Project Could Start Work in Months

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Fair Share Act Does Not Preempt Common Law When Apportioning Liability

    GIS and BIM Integration Will Transform Infrastructure Design and Construction

    Time To “Construct” New Social Media Policies

    Insurance Policies Broadly Defining “Suits” May Prompt an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify During the Chapter 558 Pre-Suit Notice Process

    Tennessee Court of Appeals Holds Defendant Has the Burden of Offering Alternative Measure of Damages to Prove that Plaintiff’s Measure of Damages is Unreasonable

    Meet D1's Neutrals Series: KENNETH FLOREY

    Battle of Experts Cannot Be Decided on Summary Judgment

    Performance Bond Primer: Need to Knows and Need to Dos

    Meet BWBO’s 2024 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    Distinguishing Hawaii Law, New Jersey Finds Anti-Assignment Clause Ineffective

    AECOM Out as General Contractor on $1.6B MSG Sphere in Las Vegas

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 38 White and Williams Lawyers

    Insured's Claim for Replacement Cost Denied

    No Coverage for Additional Insured for Construction Defect Claim

    Newport Beach Partners Jeremy Johnson, Courtney Serrato, and Associate Joseph Real Prevailed on a Demurrer in a Highly Publicized Shooting Case!

    New York Regulator Issues Cyber Insurance Guidelines

    Sales of New Homes in U.S. Increased 5.4% in July to 507,000

    Whether Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is an Occurrence Creates Ambiguity

    Recovering Unabsorbed Home Office Overhead Due to Delay

    Mexico's Richest Man Carlos Slim to Rebuild Collapsed Subway Line
    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

    Wilke Fleury Attorney Featured in 2022 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!

    September 13, 2021 —
    Wilke Fleury congratulates attorneys David Frenznick, Adriana Cervantes, Matthew Powell and Dan Egan on their inclusion in the 2022 Edition of Best Lawyers in America! Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. Almost 108,000 industry-leading lawyers are eligible to vote (from around the world), and they have received over 13 million evaluations on the legal abilities of other lawyers based on their specific practice areas around the world. For the 2021 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America©, 9.4 million votes were analyzed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury LLP

    NY State Appellate Court Holds That Pollution Exclusions Bar Duty to Defend Under Liability Policies for Claims Alleging Exposure to PFAS

    February 01, 2022 —
    On January 6, 2022, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, held that the “sudden and accidental” pollution exclusion (SAPE) and “absolute” pollution exclusion (APE) in liability policies relieved two insurers of a duty to defend the insured-manufacturer in connection with claims alleging damages as a result of exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which are man-made chemicals within the group of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). See Tonoga, Incorporated v. New Hampshire Insurance Company, No. 532546, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 105 (App. Div. 3rd Dep’t Jan. 6, 2022). In Tonoga, starting in 1961, the insured and its predecessors owned and operated a manufacturing facility in Petersburg, New York that produced materials coated with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). Until 2013, the manufacturing process involved the use of PFOA and/or PFOS. In early 2016, excessive PFOA and/or PFOS concentrations were detected in Petersburg’s municipal water supply. Later that year, the New York Department of Environmental Conversation designated the insured’s facility a Superfund site, and the insured entered into a consent agreement that required it to assist in remedial measures. 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 105, at *1-2. Reprinted courtesy of Robert F. Walsh, White and Williams LLP and Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP Mr. Walsh may be contacted at walshr@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas “Loser Pays” Law May Benefit Construction Insurers

    June 07, 2011 —

    Under a new law, Texas HB 274, the Texas Supreme Court will be making rules for motions to dismiss and to expedite suits of less than $100,000. The law also contains two “loser pays” provisions. If a lawsuit is found dismissed for having “no basis in fact or law,” the losing side must pay attorney costs. The other provision caps award of attorney fees if plaintiffs reject settlement offers. Texas Lawyer quotes Houston attorney Mike Gallagher as saying this will affect “the practice of everyone who handles significant lawsuits.”

    Gregory Marcum, whose practice includes construction defect litigation, plans to contact insurance companies, as the new law may save them money. “It will definitely be a factor in the defense strategy for handling a case.” He notes that “any insurance carrier would want that done.”

    Marcum notes that the offer-of-settlement rules only apply when cases go to trial. “Almost all cases settle.”

    Read HB 274

    Read the full story…

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

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Sub-Contractor

    July 25, 2022 —
    Interpreting Connecticut law, the federal district court had that the insured sub-contractor was entitled to a defense. County Wide Mech. Servs. LLC v. Regent Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86726 (D. Conn. May 13, 2022). The underlying plaintiff, The Saybrook at Haddam, entered a contract with PAC Group to serve as general contractor for construction of an addition to The Saybrook's facility. PAC Group sub-contracted with County Wide Mechanical Services to install the HVAC system. The HVAC system was put into service on November 14, 2014. In October 2019, The Saybrook filed the underlying action against PAC group, County Wide, and others. The underlying complaint alleged that there had been at least seven "critical failures" of the HVAC system. As a result, The Seabrook had to replace multiple compressors and several circuit boards, valves, and other components. Further, the entire system had to be replaced. The underlying complaint alleged breach of contract against PAC Group and County Wide. In addition to the alleged breach of contract between The Saybrook and County Wide, the Saybrook also alleged it was a third-party beneficiary of PAC Group's contract with County Wide regarding installation of the HVAC system. PAC Group cross-claimed against County Wide, asserting one count of contractual indemnification and one count of breach of contract under the PAC Group's contract with County Wide. 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

    Proposed Law Protecting Tenants Amended: AB 828 Updated

    June 08, 2020 —
    On May 18, 2020, AB 828 was amended and is currently on its second reading in the Senate Rules Committee. This legislation proposes a temporary moratorium on foreclosures and unlawful detainers while Governor Newsom's COVID-19 emergency order is in effect. In addition to the moratorium, AB 828 also required landlords to reduce rent by 25% under certain circumstances. AB 828 was amended to remove the provision that required landlords to reduce rent by 25% for 12 months. The new provision requires landlords to allow tenant to remain in possession, and requires tenants to start paying rent the month following the end of the emergency order. Tenants must timely pay monthly rent plus 10% of any rent due and owing when the emergency order ended. Under AB 828, a tenant may stipulate to the entry of an order in response to a residential unlawful detainer action filed by the landlord. Upon a hearing, the court determines if the tenant's inability to pay rent is the result of increased expenses or a reduction in income due to COVID-19. The court must also make a determination that there is no material economic hardship for the landlord. Upon making such determinations, the court will issue an order that permits the tenant to remain in possession, and requires tenant to commence rental payments the month following the end of the COVID-19 emergency order. Tenant's payment would include the monthly rent plus 10% of an unpaid rent during the COVID-19 emergency order, but excludes any late charges or other fees or charges. The tenant would be required to make timely payments, and if tenant fails to do so, after a 48 hour notice from landlord, the landlord can file for an immediate writ of possession in favor of the landlord and money judgment for any unpaid balance, court costs and attorneys' fees. Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at NDcovid19response@ndlf.com or visit us at www.newmeyerdillion.com/covid-19-multidisciplinary-task-force/. Rhonda Kreger is Senior Counsel on Newmeyer Dillion's transactional team at our Newport Beach office. Her practice focuses on all aspects of commercial real estate law, with a particular emphasis on the representation of residential developers, merchant builders and institutional investors. You can reach Rhonda at rhonda.kreger@ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ambiguous Application Questions Preclude Summary Judgment on Rescission Claim

    July 19, 2017 —
    In Duarte v. Pacific Specialty Ins. (No. A143828; filed 6/12/17, ord. pub. 6/29/17) a California appeals court held that an insurer was not entitled to summary judgment on its rescission claim because the disputed questions in the insurance application were ambiguous. In Duarte, the insured/owner purchased a tenant-occupied property in Oakland. Several years later the tenant’s daughter moved in, and continued living there after the tenant died. The insured/owner served the daughter with an eviction notice and shortly thereafter applied for Owners, Landlords & Tenants (“OLT”) liability coverage. The tenant/daughter responded to the eviction notice by filing a habitability lawsuit, claiming emotional distress and physical injury, among other things. The insurer denied coverage and a defense, drawing a bad faith lawsuit for failure to defend and “wrongful cancellation” of the policy. The insurer answered and raised rescission as an affirmative defense, based on alleged fraud and misrepresentation in the OLT policy application. 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

    A Chicago Skyscraper Cements the Legacy of a Visionary Postmodern Architect

    December 31, 2024 —
    A handsome and eclectic stretch of buildings along Michigan Avenue known as “Chicago’s Front Door” offers a view that reflects the city’s status as a destination for serious architecture. Louis Sullivan and Dankmar Adler’s Auditorium Building, where a young Frank Lloyd Wright designed interiors, is right there on Grant Park; so is Daniel Burnham’s Railway Exchange, where he drew up the 1909 Plan of Chicago. Now a glass-and-aluminum apartment tower anchors the southern end of this scene, filling in a rare gap within this landmarked streetwall and putting a bow on the career of another heroic figure in Chicago’s architectural history: Helmut Jahn. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mark Byrnes, Bloomberg

    No Concrete Answers on Whether Construction Defects Are Occurrences

    February 14, 2013 —
    Aaron Mandel and Stevi Raab of Sedgwick Law write Construction Defect Coverage Quarterly addressing the question of “whether defective construction constitutes an ‘occurrence’ (and therefore may be covered) under liability insurance policies.” They note that some courts have held that construction defects are not an occurrence but instead are the “natural consequence of performing substandard work.” Other courts conclude that while construction defects are not occurrences, “the resulting damage may be covered because it was fortuitous and unintended.” And, finally, other courts have concluded that “defective construction work itself is accidental and the inured rarely expects construction defects.” Mandel and Raab put forth that “these decisions essentially provide insured with huge, unintended and unfair windfalls – performance bonds for basically no premium.” Legislatures have also looked at this issue, passing laws that mandate that construction defects are occurrences. These are all fairly recent and the courts have yet to address these laws, and Mandel and Raab note that “it is unclear what their ultimate effect on the ‘occurrence’ issue will be.” They do not expect the laws to end litigation over whether construction defects are occurrences. Finally, they discuss what the ultimate results of these court decisions and laws will be. Insurers might write more policy exclusions, or increase premiums, or even cease insuring construction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of