BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration 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


    Sixth Circuit Affirms Liability Insurer's Broad Duty to Defend and Binds Insurer to Judgment Against Landlord

    Home-Building Climate Warms in U.S. as Weather Funk Lifts

    Unqualified Threat to Picket a Neutral is Unfair Labor Practice

    Suzanne Pollack Elected to Lawyers Club of San Diego 2021 Board of Directors

    Alabama Still “An Outlier” on Construction Defects

    Brad Pitt’s Foundation Sues New Orleans Architect for Construction Defects

    Quick Note: Do Your Homework When it Comes to Selecting Your Arbitrator

    One Nation, Under Renovation

    Giant Floating Solar Flowers Offer Hope for Coal-Addicted Korea

    Florida Construction Defect Decision Part of Lengthy Evolution

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

    NCDOT Aims to Reopen Helene-damaged Interstate 40 by New Year's Day

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    Midview Board of Education Lawsuit Over Construction Defect Repairs

    Update Coverage for Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    TLSS Partner Burks Smith and Associate Katie Keller Win Summary Judgment on Late Reported Water Seepage Case in South Florida

    Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity Rule Gets “Trumped” by Indemnity Provision

    Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

    Regional US Airports Are Back After Years of Decay

    Construction of World's Tallest Building to Resume With New $1.9B Contract for Jeddah Tower

    Manhattan to Add Most Office Space Since ’90 Over 3 Years

    Attempt to Overrule Trial Court's Order to Produce Underwriting Manual Fails

    Bank Sues over Defective Windows

    Missouri Legislature Passes Bill to Drastically Change Missouri’s “Consent Judgment” Statute

    School Board Settles Construction Defect Suit

    Canada Cooler Housing Market Boosts Poloz’s Soft Landing

    Teaming Agreements- A Contract to Pursue a Solicitation and Negotiate

    An Insurance Policy Isn’t Ambiguous Just Because You Want It to Be

    Coverage Found for Faulty Workmanship Damaging Other Property

    BUILD Act Inching Closer To Reality

    Coloradoans Deserve More Than Hyperbole and Rhetoric from Plaintiffs’ Attorneys; We Deserve Attainable Housing

    Colorado Court of Appeals’ Ruling Highlights Dangers of Excessive Public Works Claims

    State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

    Damage to Plaintiffs' Home Caused By Unmoored Boats Survives Surface Water Exclusion

    Loan Modifications Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: FDIC Answers CARES Act FAQs

    Virginia General Assembly Tweaks Pay-if-Paid Ban

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/14/24) – Commercial Real Estate AI, Hotel Pipeline Growth, and Housing Market Improvements

    The Conscious Builder – Interview with Casey Grey

    No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claims Against Contractor

    Reasons to Be Skeptical About a Millennial Homebuying Boom in 2016

    Federal Court Rejects Insurer's Argument that Wisconsin Has Adopted the Manifestation Trigger for Property Policy

    In Search of Cement Replacements

    Homebuilding in Las Vegas Slows but Doesn’t Fall

    Employees Versus Independent Contractors

    When it Comes to Trials, it’s Like a Box of Chocolates. Sometimes You Get the Icky Cream Filled One

    Even with LEED, Clear Specifications and Proper Documentation are Necessary

    Federal Arbitration Act Preempts Pennsylvania Payment Act

    Inspectors Hurry to Make Sure Welds Are Right before Bay Bridge Opening

    Indicted Union Representatives Try Again to Revive Enmons

    Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Area Variance Standard; Property Owners May Obtain an Area Variance When Special Circumstances Existed at Purchase
    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

    California Storm Raises Mudslide Risk, Closes Interstate

    January 28, 2025 —
    Southern California will clock a few more tense hours as showers continue to soak the burn-scarred landscape around Los Angeles. While the rains are helping fight wildfires that have killed at least 28 and destroyed more than 16,000 structures, they’re also raising the risk of deadly landslides and debris flows that can inundate a house with mud in seconds. A flood watch remains in force through 10 a.m. local time, the National Weather Service said. Skies over Los Angeles will start to clear Monday afternoon and Tuesday promises to be clear, the weather service said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian K Sullivan, Bloomberg

    Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

    December 31, 2014 —
    Did you think that a subcontractor had to name a general contractor in a mechanic’s lien suit? I did. Did you think that nothing about this changed in the case where a Virginia mechanic’s lien was “bonded off” pursuant to Va. Code Section 43-71? I did. Well, a recent Virginia Supreme Court case, Synchronized Construction Services Inc. v. Prav Lodging LLC, seems to at least create some doubt as to whether the a general contractor is a “necessary” party to a lawsuit by a subcontractor in the case where a bond is posted for release of a mechanic’s lien. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

    June 15, 2011 —

    The Hill reports that HR 2055, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs (VA) and Related Agencies bill, has passed with only five votes in opposition. The bill cuts the budget for military construction spending by $2.6 billion due to anticipated base closures.

    The bill includes $186 million for family housing construction by the Army, $100 million for family housing construction by the Navy and Marines, and $84 million for family construction by the Air Force, with an additional $50 million allocated for the DOD outside the military branches. By the act, these funds will remain available until September 30, 2016.

    Read the full story…

    Read HR 2055

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

    Insurer Must Pay for Matching Siding of Insured's Buildings

    December 02, 2019 —
    The Seventh Circuit found that the insurer was obligated to pay for siding of a building that was not damaged by hail so that it matched the replaced damaged portions of the siding. Windridge of Naperville Condominium Association v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. 23607 (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2019). A hail and wind storm damaged buildings owned by Windridge. The storm physically damaged the aluminum siding on the buildings' sought and west sides. Philadelphia Indemnity, Windridge's insurer, contended that it was only required to replace the siding on those sides. Windridge argued that replacement siding that matched the undamaged north and east elevations was no longer available, so Philadelphia had to replace the siding on all four sides of the buildings to that all of the siding matched. Windridge sued and moved for summary judgment. The district court ruled that matching was required. The only sensible result was to treat the damage as having occurred to the building's siding as a whole. The policy was a replacement-cost policy. Philadelphia promised to "pay for direct physical 'loss' to 'Covered Property' caused by or resulting from" the storm, with the amount of loss being "the cost to replace the lost or damaged property with other property . . . of comparable material and quality . . . and . . . used for the same purpose." The loss payment provision offered four different measures for loss, leaving Philadelphia free to choose the least expensive: (1) pay the value of the lost or damaged property; (2) pay the cost of repairing or replacing the lost or damaged property; (3) take all or any part of the property at an agreed or appraised value; or (4) repair, rebuild or replace the property with other property of like kind and quality. 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

    Congratulations to Wilke Fleury’s 2024 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!!

    July 15, 2024 —
    Wilke Fleury is extremely proud that several of its incredible attorneys have been selected as 2024 Northern California Super Lawyers or Rising Stars! Super Lawyers rates attorneys in each state using a patented selection process and publishes a yearly magazine issue that produces award-winning features on selected attorneys. Congratulations to this talented group: 2024 Super Lawyers: Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury LLP

    United States Supreme Court Backtracks on Recent Trajectory Away from Assertions of General Jurisdiction in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern

    August 01, 2023 —
    Washington, D.C. (June 28, 2023) – On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a sharply divided opinion that appears to backtrack on the Court’s steady trajectory away from assertions of general jurisdiction in recent years, e.g. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011), Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 2017, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017). Relying on a case from 1917, Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U. S. 93 (1917), Justice Gorsuch, writing on behalf of the plurality, (Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, Sotomayor, and Jackson) (Justice Alito concurring) found that Norfolk Southern “consented” to jurisdiction in Mallory via 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5301(a)(2)(i),(b) by registering to do business in Pennsylvania. This statute, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5301, specifically permits jurisdiction over a corporation “incorporat[ed] under or qualifi[ed]as a foreign corporation under the laws of this Commonwealth … for any cause of action that may asserted against him, whether or not arising from acts enumerated in this section.” In Pennsylvania Fire, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution in connection with a Missouri law that required an out-of-state insurance company desiring to transact any business in the state to file paperwork agreeing to (1) appoint a state official to serve as the company’s agent for service of process and (2) accept service on that official as valid in any suit. After more than a decade of complying with the law, Pennsylvania Fire was served with process and argued that the Missouri law violated due process. The Court unanimously found that there was “no doubt” that Pennsylvania Fire could be sued in Missouri because it had agreed to accept service of process in Missouri on any suit as a condition of doing business there. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Charles S. Anderson, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Anderson may be contacted at Charles.Anderson@lewisbrisbois.com

    Top Developments March 2024

    April 22, 2024 —
    CLAIMS-MADE COVERAGE Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Syngenta Crop Prot. LLC, 2024 Del. LEXIS 68 (Del. Feb. 26, 2024) Delaware Supreme Court concludes that a letter from a lawyer informing an insured of possible lawsuits without identifying potential plaintiffs or demanding payment is not a “claim for damages” within the meaning of claims-made CGL and umbrella liability policies. Citing case law from Delaware and other jurisdictions, it reasoned that, in the ordinary sense, a “claim for damages” (which the policies did not define) is “a demand or request for monetary relief by or on behalf of an identifiable claimant.” According to the court, the letter in question did not meet this definition because it did not identify any claimants “except in the vaguest terms” or request monetary relief on any claimant’s behalf, but rather communicated only a threat of future litigation. As a result, the letter was not a claim made before the policy periods at issue. POLLUTION EXCLUSION Wesco Ins. Co. v. Brad Ingram Constr., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1488 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2024) A divided Ninth Circuit panel, applying California law, holds that a pollution exclusion* in a CGL policy does not preclude a duty to defend an underlying suit alleging physical injury from exposure to “clouds of toxic dust” deposited in the environment by a wildfire and released during clean up efforts. Citing MacKinnon v. Truck Ins. Exch., 73 P.3d 1205 (Cal. 2003), the majority explained that determining whether a “pollution event” (i.e., “environmental pollution”) resulting in excluded injury has occurred involves consideration of “the character of the injurious substance” and whether the exposure resulted from a “mechanism specified in the policy.” It concluded that a potential for coverage (and, therefore, a defense obligation) existed because, although wildfire debris may be considered a “pollutant” in certain circumstances, the mechanism alleged in the underlying complaint – “expos[ure] . . . to clouds of toxic dust during the loading and unloading of [the underlying plaintiff’s] truck” – did not clearly constitute an “event commonly thought of as pollution.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Insurers Reacting to Massachusetts Tornadoes

    August 11, 2011 —

    The Patriot-Ledger reports that insurers could pay out as much as $200 million to cover homes damaged or destroyed in the tornadoes that hit central and southern Massachusetts in June, 2011. Joseph Murphy, Commissioner of the State Division of Insurance didn?t foresee problems with insurers covering these claims. “At this point, there doesn’t seem to be any one company overexposed in that area,” he told the Patriot-Ledger.

    Insurance executives did not think the tornadoes would cause them to raise rates. Steve Chevalier, CEO of NLC Companies, said, “it’s a major event for those impacted by it, but it’s not close to a financial hit to us.”

    One insurer noted that the winter weather generated more claims; however the cumulative value of those claims was $15 million.

    Read the full story…

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