BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut testifying construction 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


    Three Firm Members Are Top 100 Super Lawyers & Ten Are Recognized As Super Lawyers Or Rising Stars In 2018

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

    Home Prices Up, Inventory Down

    Death of Subcontractor’s Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Project Owner

    Hudson River PCB Cleanup Lands Back in Court

    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

    United States Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in EEOC Subpoena Case

    Virginia Families Hope to Sue over Chinese Drywall

    Don MacGregor To Speak at 2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    Renee Zellweger Selling Connecticut Country Home

    New Jersey Court Upholds Registration Requirement for Joint Ventures Bidding on Public Works Contracts

    Differences in Types of Damages Matter

    Goldberg Segalla Welcomes William L. Nimick

    Enforceability Of Subcontract “Pay-When-Paid” Provisions – An Important Update

    Monitoring Building Moisture with RFID – Interview with Jarmo Tuppurainen

    A Matter Judged: Subrogating Insurers Should Beware of Prior Suits Involving the Insured

    Fannie-Freddie Propose Liquidity Rules for Mortgage Insurers

    How to Challenge a Project Labor Agreement

    Lead Paint: The EPA’s Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule

    Baby Boomer Housing Deficit Coming?

    'Regluing' Oregon State's Showcase for Mass Timber

    Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Dorian

    Hanover, Germany Apple Store Delayed by Construction Defects

    SCOTUS to Weigh Landowners' Damage Claim Against Texas DOT

    Concerns Over Unstable Tappan Zee Bridge Push Back Opening of New NY Bridge's Second Span

    Champagne Wishes and Caviar Dreams. Unlicensed Contractor Takes the Cake

    Over 70 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Recognized in 4th Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

    “A No-Lose Proposition?”

    COVID-19 Response: California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board Implements Sweeping New Regulations to Prevent COVID-19 in the Workplace

    Tall Mass Timber Buildings Now Possible Under 2021 IBC Code Changes

    Dangerous Condition, Dangerous Precedent: California Supreme Court Expands Scope of Dangerous Condition Liability Involving Third Party Negligent/Criminal Conduct

    Professional Liability Client Alert: Law Firms Should Consider Hiring Outside Counsel Before Suing Clients For Unpaid Fees

    What is an Alternative Dispute Resolution?

    Colorado Legislature Kills SB 20-138 – A Bill to Extend Colorado’s Statute of Repose

    Ten-Year Statute Of Repose To Sue For Latent Construction Defects

    Where Standing, Mechanic’s Liens, and Bankruptcy Collide

    Clean Water Act Cases: Of Irrigation and Navigability

    Resolve to Say “No” This Year

    New Jersey’s Proposed Construction Defect Law May Not Cover Everything

    Google’s Biggest Moonshot Is Its Search for a Carbon-Free Future

    New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York

    Contractor to Repair Defective Stucco, Plans on Suing Subcontractor

    Construction Worker Falls to His Death at Kyle Field

    As Some States Use the Clean Water Act to Delay Energy Projects, EPA Issues New CWA 401 Guidance

    Smart Cities Offer New Ideas for Connectivity

    The New Industrial Revolution: Rebuilding America and the World

    Insurer's Failure to Settle Does Not Justify Multiple Damages under Unfair Claims Settlement Law

    Rhode Island Sues 13 Industry Firms Over Flawed Interstate Bridge

    Policy Lanuage Expressly Prohibits Replacement of Undamaged Material to Match Damaged Material

    Sustainability Puts Down Roots in Real Estate
    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

    Housing Prices Up through Most of Country

    December 20, 2012 —
    Home prices in October were up more than six percent compared with prices in October 2011. The LA Times noted that some of the strongest gains were in California and Arizona. The Phoenix metropolitan area saw a 24.5% rise in home prices. In California, Riverside and Los Angeles were just above the national average, at 7.3% and 6.4%, contributing to the state’s overall nine percent increase. The news wasn’t good throughout the entire country, as five states did not see any price increases. Mark Fleming, the chief economist at CoreLogic, a research firm in Irvine, California said that “the housing recovery that started earlier in 2012 continues to gain momentum. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Failure to Allege Property Damage Within Policy Period Defeats Insured's Claim

    October 03, 2022 —
    The insured's inability to determine when water damage occurred meant it could not pursue claims of property damage against the insurers. Creek v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116939 (W.D. Wash. July 1, 2022). Gold Creek Condominium complex experienced water damage. The complex was completed in 1982. The owners sued State Farm and Travelers under all-risk policies when tenders for the damage were denied. In 2017, Creek hired an expert to investigate deterioration due to water intrusion. The expert noted that "water intrusion had been evident in the exterior walls, soffits, terraces, handrails and elevated entry walkways for some time." Thereafter, Creek tendered claims for property damage to State Farm and to Travelers. 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

    St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc.

    January 18, 2021 —
    In St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc., ----Cal.App.5th--- (November 23, 2020), the California First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's entry of judgment in favor of SBC Insurance Services ("SBC") regarding a claim for water damage sustained by a residence owned by St. Mary & John Coptic Church ("St. Mary") under property coverage afforded by a policy issued by Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company ("Philadelphia"). The policy was procured by SBC on behalf of St. Mary. Philadelphia denied coverage of the claim based on the vacancy exclusion in its policy, but entered into a settlement and loan receipt agreement, whereby St. Mary gave Philadelphia the right to control litigation in St. Mary’s name against SBC or third parties who might be liable for the loss in exchange for a loan of money to repair and remediate the damage sustained by the residence. The loan was to be repaid out of any recovery made against SBC or third parties. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of SBC and held that the vacancy exclusion was ambiguous. Essentially, the exclusion did not apply to the time period prior to the time St. Mary purchased the residence, such that the 60-day vacancy requirement could not be satisfied. The trial court reasoned that since St. Mary did not have an insurable interest in the property before it purchased the property, the 60-day requirement did not include the period before such residence was purchased and St. Mary held an insurable interest. The parties’ dispute arose of out of the Pope of the Coptic Church requesting St. Mary to purchase a home to be used as his papal residence in the Western United States. St. Mary also intended to use the home as a residence for visiting bishops. The home was purchased on May 28, 2015. As part of the purchase, SBC placed the home under St. Mary’s commercial policy, rather than purchasing a separate homeowner’s policy for the residence. Subsequently, the home sustained water damage due to a broken pipe. The water damage was discovered on July 24, 2015, 57 days after the inception of the Philadelphia policy and the loss. St. Mary tendered the property loss to Philadelphia, which denied coverage of the claim based on the reasoning that the home had been vacant for 60 consecutive days prior to the loss. Subsequently, St. Mary filed suit against SBC after securing the loan receipt agreement with Philadelphia based on the argument that the vacancy exclusion barred coverage of the claim and SBC breached its duty of care by not securing the proper coverage of the home. The trial court entered judgment in favor of SBC finding that the vacancy exclusion did not apply to bar coverage of the loss, such that SBC did not breach its duty of care owed to St. Mary as its broker. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Velladao may be contacted at Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com

    Eleventh Circuit Vacates District Court Decision Finding No Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims

    November 02, 2020 —
    The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer finding there was no duty to defend. Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Mac Contractors of Florida, LLC, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 23918 (11th Cir. July 29, 2020). Mac Contractors entered into a contract with homeowners to serve as general contractor for the construction of a custom residence. Problems arose during construction and Mac eventually led the job site before completing the project. The home owners sued, alleging that Mac and its subcontractors had left the residence "replete with construction defects." Damages were sought for having to repair and remediate all defective work performed by Mac. Mac tendered under its CGL policy to its insurer, Southern-Owners. A defense was granted, but later withdrawn when Southern-Owners filed suit seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify Mac. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court found in favor of Southern-Owners based on the exclusion for "Damage to Your Work." The Eleventh Circuit vacated on appeal, concluding that the underlying complaint could fairly be construed to allege damages that fell outside of the exclusion. 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

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

    November 07, 2012 —
    The stucco subcontractor for a condominium complex did not join in with the other defendants in a settlement of more than $15 million, preferring to take the case to a jury trial. That jury has found the stucco installer liable for $7.7 million to make repairs. Mark Wiechnik of Herrick Feinstein LLP wrote about the case on the Lexology web site. Mr. Wiechnik notes that the jury was shown “samples of rotted wood taken from the property as well as numerous pictures of damage resulting from the various defects.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Commercial Development Nearly Quadruples in Jacksonville Area

    December 04, 2013 —
    Construction is up in the Jacksonville area, and no sector is doing better than commercial construction. During the first ten months of 2012, there was $21.2 million of commercial construction, but during the first ten months of 2013, there was been $73.2 million of commercial construction, helped along by a $13.7 million medical complex. In addition to the massive growth in commercial construction, residential construction is up, but by a comparatively modest 52%. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida Continues Enacting Tort Reforms, This Time Shortening the Statute of Repose

    May 01, 2023 —
    On April 13, 2023, Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, signed into law SB 360 which, among other things, shortens the statute of repose period for improvements to real property. The law also revises the date on which the statute of limitations period runs for these types of damage claims. Florida’s revision of this law provides further evidence of the state’s tort reform efforts. The new law went into effect upon signing and includes the following changes:
    • Shortens the statute of repose period set forth in Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(c) for actions founded on the design, planning or construction of improvements to real estate from ten (10) to seven (7) years. The statute of repose period runs from the earliest (rather than the latest) of the date: a) the authority having jurisdiction issues a temporary certificate of occupancy; b) a certificate of occupancy; c) a certificate of completion; or d) of abandonment of construction if not completed. Of note, the revised repose period eliminates that date of actual possession by the owner as one of the accrual dates.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts

    February 14, 2013 —
    Keirns Construction Co. (“Keirns”) hired Landmark Engineering, Ltd. (“Landmark”) to provide a geotechnical investigation and foundation designs for two duplexes Keirns built in Larimer County. Keirns and Landmark signed one contract in 2001 for the geotechnical work and two separate contracts in 2005 for the foundation design of the two duplexes. Each contract contained an identical “risk allocation clause,” which had language specifically limiting Landmark’s liability to Keirns. The risk allocation clause also had language specifically prohibiting claims against individuals and only allowing claims against a corporation. After the two duplexes were built, foundation problems developed, and Keirns filed suit against Landmark for breach of contract and negligence. Keirns also filed suit against two individual employees of Landmark, Wayne Thompson and Larry Miller, for negligence. Messrs. Thompson and Miller performed the geotechnical and design services pursuant to the contracts. Landmark and Messrs. Thompson and Miller filed a motion seeking to enforce the risk of allocation clauses in the contracts, thereby limiting Landmark’s liability. Messrs. Thompson and Miller also filed a summary judgment motion seeking their dismissal from the case based on the prohibition in the risk allocation clause against asserting claims against individuals. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Heidi Gassman
    Ms. Gassman can be contacted at gassman@hhmrlaw.com