BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut consulting architect 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


    Tech Focus: Water Tech Getting Smarter

    Contract Construction Smarts: Helpful Provisions for Dispute Resolution

    There Is No Sympathy If You Fail to Read Closely the Final Negotiated Construction Contract

    Auditor: Prematurely Awarded Contracts Increased Honolulu Rail Cost by $354M

    Colorado Supreme Court to Hear Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, et al.

    Arbitration Provisions Are Challenging To Circumvent

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Awarded Sacramento Business Journal’s Best of the Bar

    Congratulations to our 2019 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    Rio Olympic Infrastructure Costs of $2.3 Billion Are Set to Rise

    Fifth Circuit Finds Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    For Whom Additional Insured Coverage Applies in New York

    Georgia Supreme Court Limits Damages Under Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act

    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    FBI Makes Arrest Related to Saipan Casino Construction

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/10/24) – New Type of Nuclear Reactor, Big Money Surrounding Sports Stadiums, and Positivity from Fannie Mae’s Monthly Consumer Survey

    Congratulations to Partner John O’Meara for Being Named as One of America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators for Three Consecutive Years!

    Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell Recognized in 2024 Best Law Firm® Rankings

    Residential Building Sector: Peaking or Soaring?

    Being deposed—not just for dictators! Depositions in the construction lawsuit (Law & Order: Hard Hat files Part 5)

    Tall and Sustainable Is Not an Easy Fix

    Greg Dillion & Newmeyer Dillion Named 2019 Good Scout Award Recipient

    California Insurance Commissioner Lacks Authority to Regulate Formula for Estimating Replacement Cost Value

    Construction Defects Lead to “A Pretty Shocking Sight”

    Release Language Extended To Successor Entity But Only Covered “Known” Claims

    Understanding the California Consumer Privacy Act

    Massachusetts Court Holds Statute of Repose Bars Certain Asbestos-Related Construction Claims

    Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Serves as Chair of the ABA Minority Trial Lawyer Committee’s Programming Subcommittee

    Arizona Court Affirms Homeowners’ Association’s Right to Sue Over Construction Defects

    Supreme Court Addresses Newly Amended Statute of Repose for Construction Claims

    The Pandemic of Litigation Sure to Follow the Coronavirus

    SE 2050 Is In Quixotic Pursuit of Eliminating Embodied Carbon in Building Structures

    Delaware Court Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements

    How a Robot-Built Habitat on Mars Could Change Construction on Earth

    White and Williams LLP Secures Affirmation of Denial to Change Trial Settings Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to Meet the Texas Causation Standard for Asbestos Cases

    AAA Revises Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures

    BUILD Act Inching Closer To Reality

    Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

    Condo Building Hits Highest Share of Canada Market Since 1971

    Haight’s John Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2020 Southern California Rising Stars

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Constructive Notice Established as Obstacle to Relation Back Doctrine

    Kumagai Drops Most in 4 Months on Building Defect: Tokyo Mover

    With an Eye Already in the Sky, Crane Camera Goes Big Data

    Contractor Definition Central to Coverage Dispute

    Residential Mortgage Lenders and Servicers Beware of Changes to Rule 3002.1

    In Appellate Division First, New York Appellate Team Successfully Invokes “Party Finality” Doctrine to Obtain Dismissal of Appeal for Commercial Guarantors

    Duuers: Better Proposals with Less Work

    BHA Has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports NCHV and Final Salute at 2017 WCC Seminar

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims
    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

    Legal Fallout Begins Over Delayed Edmonton Bridges

    June 22, 2016 —
    The project teams for Edmonton’s two problem bridge-replacement projects have put most of their woes behind them—if trips to civil court and possible late-completion penalties are excluded. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted with questions or comments at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

    August 17, 2017 —
    Destructive testing is a routine investigatory procedure in construction defect disputes. The destructive testing is necessary to determine liability (causation), the extent of damage, and the repair protocol. Destructive testing is designed to answer numerous questions: Why did the building component fail? Was the building component constructed incorrectly? What is the magnitude of the damage caused by the failure? What specifically caused the damage? What is the most effective way to fix the failure and damage? There are different iterations to the same questions, but in many instances, destructive testing is necessary to answer these questions. Claimants sometimes prohibit destructive testing. Of course, destructive testing is intrusive. In many instances, it is very intrusive. But, this testing is a necessary evil. Without this testing, how can a defendant truly analyze their potential exposure and culpability? They need to be in a position to prepare a defense and figure out their liability. This does not mean destructive testing is warranted in every single construction defect dispute. That is not the case. However, to say it is never warranted is irrational. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

    Firm Leadership – New Co-Chairs for the Construction Law Practice Group

    July 02, 2024 —
    Partners Yvette Davis and Beth Obra-White have been named co-chairs for the firm’s Construction Law Practice Group. Yvette, Beth and other diverse leaders within the firm play an integral role in the firm’s Diversity, Equity & Inclusion initiatives. Congratulations to Yvette & Beth for their new roles as practice group leaders! Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    2015 California Construction Law Update

    December 31, 2014 —
    Over 2,200 bills were introduced during the second and final year of the 2013-2014 legislative session of which 931 were signed into law. For the design and construction industry, the end of the second session, like the end of the first session, saw a number of new prevailing wage bills signed into law, which again reflected the strong Democratic majorities in both the Assembly and Senate. The end of the second session also saw the enactment of laws consolidating several existing design-build authorization sections and extending the 5% cap on retention for public works projects. 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

    Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    August 04, 2015 —
    The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the insurer had a duty to defend a construction defect case. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pulte Home Corp., 2015 Ill App. Unpub. LEXIS 1039 (Ill. Ct. App. May 15, 2015). Pulte Home Corporation was a developer who developed and constructed a residential condominium development known as The Reserve of Elgin (The Reserve). G.H. Siding was subcontracted by Pulte to work on the development, including the installation of exterior siding. The Reserve Homeowners Association (HOA) filed suit against Pulte and James Hardie Building Products Inc., the company that manufactured the exterior siding. The complaint alleged that Pulte developed, designed, constructed and sold the units and common areas. Pulte installed siding manufactured by Hardie on the exterior of the units. The siding was allegedly defective. The HOA alleged breach of implied warranty of habitability and breach of contract by Pulte. Hardie was sued for breach of express warranty and breach of implied warrant of habitability. 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

    Nevada Supreme Court Holds That Insureds Can Use Extrinsic Evidence to Prove Duty to Defend

    February 28, 2022 —
    The recent Nevada Supreme Court ruling in Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company1 benefits insureds seeking to establish an insurer’s duty to defend. As a matter of first impression, the court clarified that insureds have the burden to prove that an exception to a policy exclusion applies in order to trigger the insured’s duty to defend. However, while the policyholder may use extrinsic evidence to establish the insurer’s duty to defend, the insurer may not use extrinsic evidence to deny that duty. The facts of the underlying claim are set in the 2000s when the insured subcontractors worked to build thousands of homes in Nevada. The subcontractors were insured by Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) during that period. After the homes were complete, the subcontractors switched from Zurich to Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (“Ironshore”). Between 2010 and 2013, homeowners brought claims against the subcontractors alleging that the properties were damaged due to construction defects. The subcontractors tendered the claims to Zurich as the insurer at the time of construction. Zurich then sought defense and indemnification from Ironshore. Ironshore denied coverage under a “continuing and progressive” policy exclusion, claiming that the property damage occurred due to faulty work that predated the Ironshore policy. Notably, an exception to the exclusion applied if “sudden and accidental” property damage occurred within the Ironshore policy period. Given that the underlying lawsuits did not include specific allegations describing when or how the property damage occurred, Ironshore and Zurich disagreed on whether the exception to the exclusion was triggered.. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. Barrese may be contacted at BBarrese@sdvlaw.com

    Federal Court Reiterates Broad Duty to Defend in Additional Insured Cases

    April 22, 2024 —
    In the recent case of Travelers Indem. Co. of Am. v. Accredited Sur. & Cas. Co., No. 21-CV-7189 (FB) (JRC), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44634 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2024), the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York had occasion to consider an additional insured tender on behalf of a prime contractor, Archstone, to a subcontractor, Topline, who was named as a direct defendant in a New York labor law case. Even though Topline’s carrier put forth evidence that Topline was not negligent, the court held, under New York’s broad duty to defend, that Topline’s carrier owed a duty to defend the prime contractor. Initially, the court was satisfied that a purchase order, signed only by Topline and not Archstone, was binding on Topline. That purchase order specified that Topline agreed to name Archstone as an additional insured. With respect to the duty to defend, the court found that it was enough that the underlying plaintiff alleged that all defendants, including Topline, were negligent in permitting a ladder that plaintiff was on to remain in a defective condition and in failing to foresee the existence of a hazard from the condition of the subject ladder. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

    Certified Question Asks Hawaii Supreme Court to Determine Coverage for Allegations of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

    October 09, 2023 —
    The federal district court certified questions to the Hawaii Supreme Court regarding coverage for underlying allegations of greenhouse gas emissions. Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156211 (D. Haw. Sept. 5, 2023). Aloha was sued in two lawsuits, one filed by the County of Maui and the second filed by the City and County of Honolulu. The underlying lawsuits alleged that Aloha disregarded known risks of harm to the counties when selling its fuel products that would inevitably combust and produce greenhouse gasses, particularly carbon dioxide, thereby changing the climate and causing harm to the counties. Aloha tendered the suits to AIG. Coverage was denied based on AIG's determination there was no "occurrence" and the pollution exclusion barred coverage. Aloha sued AIG in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment on AIG's obligations under the policy. 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