BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety 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


    Thanks for the Super Lawyers Nod for 2019!

    There’s an Unusual Thing Happening in the Housing Market

    Joint Venture Dispute Over Profits

    D.R. Horton Profit Beats Estimates as Home Sales Jumped

    Collapse of Underground Storage Cave Not Covered

    Lewis Brisbois Successfully Concludes Privacy Dispute for Comedian Kathy Griffin Following Calif. Supreme Court Denial of Review

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (06/06/23) – Housing Woes, EV Plants and the Debate over Public Financing

    Crowdfunding Comes to Manhattan’s World Trade Center

    Blackstone Said in $1.7 Billion Deal to Buy Apartments

    Insurer in Bad Faith Due to Adjuster's Failure to Keep Abreast of Case Law

    California Courts Call a “Time Out” During COVID-19 –New Emergency Court Rules on Civil Litigation

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

    The Texas Supreme Court Limits the Use of the Economic Loss Rule

    Georgia Supreme Court Limits Damages Under Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act

    Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

    Beam Cracks Cause Closure of San Francisco’s New $2B Transit Center

    Texas Federal Court Delivers Another Big Win for Policyholders on CGL Coverage for Construction-Defect Claims and “Rip-and-Tear” Damages

    Product Liability Alert: Evidence of Apportionment of Fault Admissible in Strict Products Liability Action

    A “Flood” of Uncertainty; Massachusetts SJC Finds Policy Term Ambiguous

    In Texas, a General Contractor May be Liable in Tort to a Third-Party Lessee for Property Damage Caused by a Subcontractor’s Work

    The Unwavering Un-waivable Implied Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability in Arizona

    Massive Wildfire Near Boulder, Colo., Destroys Nearly 1,000 Homes and Businesses

    Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending

    Massachusetts High Court: Attorney's Fee Award Under Consumer Protection Act Not Covered by General Liability Insurance Policy

    Construction Delays: Which Method Should Be Used to Calculate Delay?

    Union THUGS Plead Guilty

    Cooperation and Collaboration With Government May Be on the Horizon

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: World Class Shopping Experiences

    Texas covered versus uncovered allocation and “legally obligated to pay.”

    Landlords, Brace Yourselves: New Law Now Limits Your Rental Increases & Terminations

    Accounting for Payments on Projects Became Even More Crucial This Year

    Does the Russia Ukraine War Lead to a Consideration in Your Construction Contracts?

    Real Estate Trends: Looking Ahead to 2021

    Insurer Sued for Altering Policies after Claim

    Idaho District Court Affirms Its Role as the Gatekeeper of Expert Testimony

    Contractual Waiver of Consequential Damages

    Extreme Heat, Smoke Should Get US Disaster Label, Groups Say

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Surged in August to Six-Year High

    Engineer Pauses Fix of 'Sinking' Millennium Tower in San Francisco

    Key California Employment Law Cases: October 2018

    Netflix Plans $900M Facility At Former New Jersey Army Base

    OSHA Reinforces COVID Guidelines for the Workplace

    New York Shuts Down Majority of Construction

    Coverage Found for Faulty Workmanship Damaging Other Property

    Palo Alto Considers Fines for Stalled Construction Projects

    Anatomy of a Data Center

    My Employees Could Have COVID-19. What Now?

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 04/06/22

    Reasonable Expectations – Pennsylvania’s Case by Case Approach to the Sutton Rule

    Court of Appeal Puts the “Equity” in Equitable Subrogation
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Michigan Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade, Improving from "D+" Grade in 2018

    May 08, 2023 —
    LANSING, MI. — The Michigan Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) released the 2023 Report Card for Michigan's Infrastructure today, with 14 categories of infrastructure receiving an overall grade of 'C-', an improvement over the 'D+' grade issued in the state's 2018 report card. That means Michigan's infrastructure systems are improving but are still in average condition and require attention. Michigan's grade is on par with the national average of 'C-' given in the 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure. Civil engineers graded Michigan's aviation (C), bridges (D+), dams (C-), drinking water (D+), energy (D), inland waterways (C), public parks (C), rail (C), roads (D), schools (C-), solid waste (C+), stormwater (D), transit (C-), and wastewater (C). The report also included a chapter on the state's broadband infrastructure, which did not receive a grade due to insufficient available data. Michigan policymakers have driven progress in the last five years to improve infrastructure assets by implementing short-term funding solutions to address decades of deferred maintenance, including surface transportation funding through the Rebuilding Michigan plan and improved water infrastructure systems through the MI Clean Water Plan. The state will also benefit from recent federal infrastructure investments included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, and American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). However, Michigan generally lacks sufficient long-term funding mechanisms to ensure all infrastructure sectors reach and sustain a state of good repair. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sixth Circuit Holds that Some Official Actions Taken in the “Flint Water Crisis” Could Be Constitutional Due Process Violations

    March 27, 2019 —
    In what the Court of Appeals describes as “the infamous government-created environmental disaster known at the Flint Water Crisis,” a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that some of the government personnel responsible for this disaster may be liable, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for monetary damages based on the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The case is Guertin, et al., v. State of Michigan, et al., decided on January 4, 2019. On April 25, 2014, the City of Flint, MI, facing a financial crisis, agreed to switch its drinking water supply from the water provided by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department to untreated water available from the Flint River that would be treated in the waterworks owned and operated by the City. However, the City waterworks could not provide the needed treatment, which resulted in the corrosive Flint River water leaching lead out of the old Flint water pipes. Soon thereafter, a public health and environmental crisis enveloped Flint. Many lawsuits have been filed against many defendants, and many civil and criminal investigations have been opened. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Settlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National Union

    December 11, 2013 —
    In the last year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado found that a settlement payment from an excess insurance carrier to another primary insurance carrier precluded a finding of vertical exhaustion sufficient to trigger the primary carrier’s duty to indemnify. See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 2012 WL 6004087 (D. Colo. 2012). The Scottsdale case arose out of the construction of a 507-unit apartment complex in Arapahoe County, Colorado in which a number of defects became apparent during construction. As a result, the owner of the project sued the general contractor and/or the construction manager, seeking to recover more than $22 million for various construction deficiencies. Id. at *1. The general contractor was insured under policies issued by several carriers. Scottsdale Insurance Co. (“Scottsdale”) and National Union Fire Ins. Co. (“National Union) provided umbrella coverage, and CNA and American Zurich Ins. Co. (“Zurich”) provided primary insurance under commercial general liability policies. About five years later, the construction defect case settled for $8.5 million dollars. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Heather Anderson
    Heather Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com

    Reversing Itself, West Virginia Supreme Court Holds Construction Defects Are Covered

    July 31, 2013 —
    The West Virginia Supreme Court previously held that construction defects were not covered under a CGL policy. The Court, however, reversed itself in Cherrington v. Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co., 2013 W.Va. LEXIS 724 (W.V. June 18, 2013). The underlying complaint against the general contractor alleged various defects in the plaintiff’s recently constructed house, including an uneven concrete floor, water infiltration through the roof and chimney joint, a sagging support beam, and numerous cracks in the drywall walls and partitions throughout the house. Erie Insurance denied coverage. The insured general contractor sued, but the trial court found that faulty workmanship was not sufficient to give rise to an “occurrence.” The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed its prior rulings determining there was no coverage for construction defects. The court recognized its prior position was in the minority, as is Hawaii's position on coverage for construction defects. See Group Builders Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 123 Haw. 142, 148, 231 P.3d 67, 73 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010). Now joining the majority position, the West Virginia Supreme Court found that defective workmanship causing property damage was an “occurrence” under a CGL policy. Further, the homeowner had demonstrated that she sustained "property damage" as a result of the allegedly defective construction of her home. The trial court also determined that the business risk exclusions barred coverage. Again, the West Virginia Supreme Court disagreed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Beam Cracks Cause Closure of San Francisco’s New $2B Transit Center

    October 09, 2018 —
    After two billion dollars and two decades, San Francisco’s newest transportation hub opened on August 11th of this year only to be closed a month later, on September 25th, after a cracked beam was discovered, according to The Real Deal. Later, workers found an additional, though smaller, crack in another beam parallel to the first. The Real Deal described the crack in the first beam: “The Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) – which built and now operates the center – said the tear was 2.5 feet long and 4.5 inches deep on a 60-foot beam that holds a 5.4-acre rooftop park above a bus deck.” Steel supports are now being installed to reduce the pressure on the beams. While officials have not discovered the cause of the problem, The Real Deal reported several possibilities, including “fabrication problems, installation error, too much weight, or an issue in the initial design.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Calling the Shots

    May 03, 2021 —
    As of 2019, women accounted for 10% of the total construction workforce. That’s 1.2 million women in the field, sculpting the built environment and calling the shots. A smaller percentage of the industry’s population does not mean less ability to achieve success. According to The National Association of Women in Construction, 44% of women in construction serve in a professional and management capacity. As the pandemic lingers on, sourcing qualified candidates is becoming more difficult, and finding nuanced methods of retaining valuable employees remains at the forefront of modern business. One estimate cites a loss of 600,000 women from the overall U.S. workforce in September 2020. However, data suggest that construction employment for women has remained steady, compared with struggling sectors such as retail and hospitality. Plus, salary disparities are becoming less prominent in the construction sector where, according to NAWIC, women earn 99.1% of what men make, and the female population has seen steady growth since 2012. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Massachusetts High Court: Attorney's Fee Award Under Consumer Protection Act Not Covered by General Liability Insurance Policy

    September 19, 2022 —
    In the case of Vermont Mutual Insurance Co. v. Poirier, 189 N.E.3d 306 (Mass. 2022), Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court concluded that an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Chapter 93A (Massachusetts’ Consumer Protection Act) is not covered under an insured’s general liability insurance policy. Applying Massachusetts law, the Court found that a statutory award of attorney’s fees stemming from a bodily injury claim is not reasonably considered “damages because of bodily injury” or “costs taxed against the insured” so as to trigger general liability coverage. Facts of the Case A Servpro company (owned by Mr. and Mrs. Poirier) was hired to clean up a basement after a sewage spill. The owners of the home were injured by fumes from chemicals used in the cleanup and accordingly brought suit against the Poiriers and their Servpro business. In the lawsuit, the homeowners alleged negligence, breach of contract, and also a Chapter 93A claim, asserting breach of warranty of merchantability and warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Prior to trial, the plaintiffs waived the negligence and breach of contract claims and sought a bench trial on the Chapter 93A claims alone. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Michigan Supreme Court Finds Faulty Subcontractor Work That Damages Insured’s Work Product May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under CGL Policy

    November 02, 2020 —
    In Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contractors, Inc., 2020 WL 3527909 (Mich. June 29, 2020), the Michigan Supreme Court addressed whether unintentionally faulty subcontractor work that damages an insured’s work product constitutes an “accident” under a commercial general liability insurance policy. In aligning itself with a growing number of jurisdictions, the Michigan Supreme Court answered, “yes.” In Skanska, a construction manager brought an action against a commercial general liability (CGL) insurer seeking coverage as additional insured for the cost of repairs to correct faulty work performed by its subcontractor in renovation of medical center. In 2009, the construction manager hired MAP to install a steam boiler and related piping for the medical center’s heating system. MAP’s installation included several expansion joints, which it was later discovered, were installed backward. Significant damage to concrete, steel, and the heating system occurred as a result. The construction manager performed the work of repairing and replacing the damaged property to the tune of $1.4 million, and submitted a claim to MAP’s CGL insurer, Amerisure, seeking coverage as an additional insured. Amerisure denied the claim contending that MAP’s defective construction was not a covered “occurrence” within the CGL policy. The policy defined “occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions,” but did not define the term “accident.” The trial court looked to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hawkeye-Sec. Ins. Co. v. Vector Const. Co., 185 Mich. App. 369 (1990), which defined “accident” as “…a result which is not anticipated and…takes place without the insured’s foresight or expectation and without design or intentional causation on his part.” But, again citing Hawkeye, the trial court concluded that “[d]efective workmanship, standing alone, is not an occurrence within the meaning of a[ ] general liability insurance contract[;] an occurrence exists where the insured’s faulty work product damages the property of another.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com