BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractor
    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


    Run Spot...Run!

    Construction Professionals Could Face More Liability Exposure Following California Appellate Ruling

    Homebuilders Call for Housing Tax Incentives

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    Indemnity Clauses—What do they mean, and what should you be looking for?

    Reminder: The Devil is in the Mechanic’s Lien Details

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    Quick Note: Expert Testimony – Back to the Frye Test in Florida

    White and Williams Selected in the 2024 Best Law Firms ranked by Best Lawyers®

    2025 Construction Law Update

    Affordable Global Housing Will Cost $11 Trillion

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    Drywall Originator Hopes to Sell in Asia

    Construction Spending Drops in March

    Design Professional Liens: A Blueprint

    Developer’s Failure to Plead Amount of Damages in Cross-Complaint Fatal to Direct Action Against Subcontractor’s Insurers Based on Default Judgment

    Excessive Corrosion Cause of Ohio State Fair Ride Accident

    Construction Costs Up

    Rattlesnake Bite Triggers Potential Liability for Walmart

    No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy

    Business Insurance Names Rachel Hudgins Among 2024 Break Out Award Winners

    Happenings in and around the 2016 West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Practical Pointers for Change Orders on Commercial Construction Contracts

    Claim Preclusion: The Doctrine Everyone Thinks They Know But No One Really Knows What it Means in Practice

    School’s Lawsuit over Defective Field Construction Delayed

    Home Buyers Lose as U.S. Bond Rally Skips Mortgage Rates

    Keeping Detailed Records: The Best Defense to Constructive Eviction

    Understanding the Real Estate and Tax Implications of Florida's Buyer Ban Law

    More Musings From the Mediation Trenches

    The Cheap and Easy Climate Fix That Can Cool the Planet Fast

    Arizona Supreme Court Holds a Credit Bid at a Trustee’s Sale Should Not be Credited to a Title Insurer Under a Standard Lender’s Title Policy To the Extent the Bid Exceeds the Collateral’s Fair Market Value

    Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2021

    The Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Trial to Begin

    Red Wings Owner, Needing Hockey-Arena Neighborhood, Builds One

    Four Key Steps for a Successful Construction Audit Process

    Update – Property Owner’s Defense Goes up in Smoke in Careless Smoking Case

    Utah Supreme Court Allows Citizens to Block Real Estate Development Project by Voter Referendum

    The Three L’s of Real Estate Have New, Urgent Meaning

    Attorneys’ Fees and the American Arbitration Association Rule

    Engineers Propose 'River' Alternative to Border Wall

    The Shifting Sands of Alternative Dispute Resolution

    New Law Raises Standard for Defense Experts as to Medical Causation

    The EEOC Targets Construction Industry For Heightened Enforcement

    Contractor’s Burden When It Comes to Delay

    The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions: A.B. 1701’s Requirement that General Contractors Pay Subcontractor Employee Wages Will Do More Harm Than Good

    Heat Stress Deaths Show Europe Isn’t Ready for Climate Change

    How to Protect a Construction-Related Invention

    Pennsylvania Modernizes State Building Code

    Contractor Entitled to Continued Defense Against Allegations of Faulty Construction
    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

    Connecticut Supreme Court to Review Several Issues in Asbestos Coverage Case

    November 08, 2017 —
    On October 18, 2017, in R.T. Vanderbilt Company v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, the Connecticut Supreme Court certified four issues for appeal, which relate to trigger, allocation, pollution exclusions, and the occupational disease exclusion in the context of asbestos bodily injury claims. This post identifies the issues the Connecticut Supreme Court will decide on appeal and sets forth the Appellate Court’s ruling on each issue. Issue 1: Whether a “continuous trigger” theory of coverage applies to asbestos-related disease claims and whether expert medical testimony on the timing of injury should be precluded The Appellate Court applied a continuous trigger, and found that the trial court properly excluded testimony from medical experts the insurers had proffered to prove that the asbestos disease process did not support a continuous trigger. Reprinted courtesy of Ciaran Way, White and Williams LLP and Robert Walsh, White and Williams LLP Ms. Way may be contacted at wayc@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Walsh may be contacted at walshr@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Verdict In Favor Of Insured Homeowner Reversed For Improper Jury Instructions

    October 23, 2018 —
    The appellate court reversed the jury verdict in favor of the homeowners based upon improper instructions purporting to impose a duty to adjust the claim and how to construe a contract. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v Mendoza, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 9497 (Fla. Ct. App. July 5, 2018). The insureds incurred water damage to their home caused by a water heater leak. After a claim was filed, the insurer sent an adjuster to investigate the claim. The insurer denied the claim due to an exclusion for constant or repeated seepage or leakage. At trial, the insurer offered testimony that the leak was a continued and repeated seepage of water over a long period of time, which was excluded under the policy, and not a sudden and accidental discharge of water, which would have been covered. 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

    NY Appeals Court Ruled Builders not Responsible in Terrorism Cases

    January 13, 2014 —
    In a ruling on a case related to the September 11, 2001 attacks, New York federal appeals court stated that builders and developers could not be held responsible for losses linked to terrorism, Reuters reports. Circuit Judge Rosemary said the building “would have collapsed regardless of any negligence ascribed by plaintiffs' experts.” Scott Sweeney writing for the Schinnerer's RM Blog explained, “This decision should make it harder for constructors and designers to be held responsible for damages resulting from major acts of terrorism and unforeseeable events that can be nearly impossible to prepare for.” Read the full story at Reuters... Read the full story at Schinnerer's RM Blog... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Daily Construction Reports: Don’t Leave the Job Without Them

    January 11, 2022 —
    Trying to remember exactly what was done at a job site last week, last month or last quarter along with knowing who worked at the site is nearly impossible without a written, video or electronic record for reference. That’s why daily construction reports are so important. Yet many contractors fail to create these reports. And those that do create them, may do it only at the beginning of a project or sporadically throughout the progress of a job, and generally only when they are reminded to do so. Daily reports only become truly effective when they are, in fact, done daily. Whether it is to help resolve a pending delay issue or clarify a job site access claim, or any number of other matters where what happened at the time is so critical, those daily construction reports should be completed daily. Be Timely The reason that daily reports are admissible in court (with corroborating testimony) is that they are interpreted as being recorded at or about the time the events in question occurred. Field managers should, therefore, write up these reports daily while the work is occurring or very soon thereafter to capture as accurate an account as possible. If these reports are not created until the end of the week or month, the information will not be as accurate and may not be as helpful in supporting a particular position. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Barthet, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Barthet may be contacted at pbarthet@barthet.com

    Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California

    October 27, 2016 —
    Aside from general statutory prohibitions on lender discrimination, there are certain circumstances under California law in which lenders may be held liable for credit-related actions, such as negotiating or denying credit. See generally 11 Cal. Real Est. § 35:3 (explaining that the business of lending money is subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq., the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 12900 et seq., the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq.). Specifically, lenders have been held liable for credit-related actions where, among other things, the lender (1) breached a loan commitment; (2) committed fraud; or (3) breached a fiduciary duty owed to the borrower. The Lender-Borrower Relationship As a general rule, a lender does not owe a duty of care to a borrower when the lender’s involvement in a transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a lender of money. Oaks Management Corp. v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 453, 466 (“[I]t is established that absent special circumstances . . . a loan transaction is at arms-length and there is no fiduciary relationship between the borrower and lender.”); Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1096 (holding lender owed no duty of care to a borrower in preparing an appraisal of the real property that was security for the loan when the purpose of the appraisal is to protect the lender by satisfying it that the collateral provided adequate security for the loan, and noting that “as a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money”). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

    3D Printing Innovations Enhance Building Safety

    October 07, 2019 —
    The mention of 3D printing alone is enough to get people excited, often conjuring images of a desktop console that can download and create three dimensional objects such as prototypes, or mechanical parts. And yet, in recent years the technology has given way to a slight impatience, as people begin to wonder how and when it will have a direct impact on both their lifestyles and their businesses. The construction industry has been quick to take advantage of these innovations, and the effects are tangible, especially regarding building safety. The 3D construction technology allows for several key advantages in terms of faster construction times, uncompromised quality of construction and lower costs—allowing for affordable dwellings to be quickly built for people in need. These advantages also lead to safety improvements during the building process. The ability to accelerate construction time without requiring an increase in labor results in a fewer construction-related workplace injuries and a reduction in material waste, making it an environmentally friendly construction method as well. ICC-Evaluation Service (ICC-ES), a subsidiary of the International Code Council (ICC) which develops model codes and standards (i.e. International Building Code, International Residential Code) and delivers a wide array of building safety services, has taken the lead on developing acceptance criteria to address building code compliance of 3D printed construction. Currently, 3D construction technology is not within the provisions of the International Building Code (IBC) or International Residential Code (IRC). The acceptance criteria introduces new compliance measures for interior and exterior 3D printed concrete walls (with and without structural steel reinforcement), load-bearing and non-load-bearing walls, and shear walls in one-story, single-unit, residential dwellings. The 3D walls are constructed by printing two outer layers of 3D concrete and then filling the core with 3D concrete to form a solid wall. Reprinted courtesy of Mahmut Ekenel & Melissa Sanchez, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Ekenel may be contacted at mekenel@icc-es.org Ms. Sanchez may be contacted at msanchez@icc-es.org Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Illinois Court Addresses Coverage Owed For Subcontractor’s Defective Work

    May 06, 2019 —
    In Acuity Ins. Co. v. 950 W. Huron Condo. Assoc’n, 2019 IL App (1st) 180743, the Illinois Court of Appeals held that a claim against a subcontractor for damage caused to property outside the scope of its work satisfied the insuring agreement of a CGL policy. The condominium association for the building located at 950 West Huron Street in Chicago, Illinois (“the Association”), sued its general contractor and construction manager Belgravia Group, Ltd., and Belgravia Construction Corporation (collectively “Belgravia”). The Association sought to recover for alleged defects from Belgravia’s unworkmanlike construction of the building that permitted water to permeate and cause damage. In the Association’s complaint, it alleged that in June 2002, after the Association took possession of the building but prior to the completion of construction, Belgravia became aware of numerous conditions and defects, including extensive water infiltration of the building. After discussing the issues with Belgravia, the Association claimed that Belgravia retained contractors to provide cosmetic fixes. However, this did not address the problems and defects. The Association alleged that it spent a substantial amount of money to identify and correct the damage and that it would incur additional costs for future repairs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Bassett, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Bassett may be contacted at bbassett@tlsslaw.com

    "Occurrence" May Include Intentional Acts In Montana

    June 22, 2016 —
    The Montana Supreme Court found that policy language defining "accidents may include intentional acts." Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Fisher Builders, Inc., 2016 Mont. LEXIS 269 (Mont. Sup. Ct. April 19, 2016). Jerry and Karen Slack hired Fisher Builders to build a remodeled home located on the site of their home at Flathead Lake. The existing home was an aged vacation home. The County zoning regulations required the remodeled home to incorporate the existing structure. The permit issued to the Slacks required the existing deck to remain unchanged. Fisher elevated the existing home structure on steel beams to pour a new foundation. Fisher began to dismantle the walls while the structure was resting on the beams, and found an infestation of carpenter ants. The ant-infested planks were cut out, apparently in order to salvage what usable materials he could from the remaining structure. The ant-infested boards were subsequently burned. Eventually, the deck collapsed. 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