BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs 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


    Haight’s Stevie Baris Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Northern California Rising Stars

    Do Not Lose Your Mechanics Lien Right Through a Subordination Agreement

    Judgment for Insurer Reversed Due to Failure to Establish Depreciation

    Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    California Supreme Court Declines Request to Expand Exceptions to Privette Doctrine for Known Hazards

    Carrier Has Duty to Defend Claim for Active Malfunction of Product

    Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable

    It’s Time to Include PFAS in Every Property Related Release

    Connecticut Federal District Court Follows Majority Rule on Insurance Policy Anti-Assignment Clauses

    'Major' Mass. Gas Leak Follows Feds Call For Regulation Changes One Year After Deadly Gas Explosions

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!

    Contractor Owed a Defense

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution

    Ongoing Operations Exclusion Bars Coverage

    An Occurrence Under Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy Is Based on the Language in the Policy

    4 Ways to Mitigate Construction Disputes

    Firm Offers Tips on Construction Defects in Colorado

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar – Recap

    An Expert’s Qualifications are Important

    APROPLAN and GenieBelt Merge, Creating “LetsBuild” – the Build Phase End-to-End Digital Platform

    Insurer Waives Objection to Appraiser's Partiality by Waiting Until Appraisal Issued

    With VA Mechanic’s Liens Sometimes “Substantial Compliance” is Enough (but don’t count on it)

    Creative Avenue for Judgment Creditor to Collect a Judgment

    Traub Lieberman Partner Stephen Straus Wins Spoliation Motion in Favor of Defendant

    Welcome to SubTropolis: The Massive Business Complex Buried Under Kansas City

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports Wounded Warrior Project at WCC Seminar

    Failure to Consider Safety Element in Design Does Not Preclude Public Entity’s Discretionary Authority Under Design Immunity Defense

    GOP, States, Industry Challenge EPA Project Water Impact Rule

    Yet ANOTHER Reminder to Always Respond

    They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?

    Judge Tells DOL to Cork its Pistol as New Overtime Rule is Blocked

    Cameron Kalunian to Speak at Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    The “Right to Repair” Construction Defects in the Rocky Mountain and Plains Region

    Montrose III: Appeals Court Rejects “Elective Vertical Stacking,” but Declines to Find “Universal Horizontal Exhaustion” Absent Proof of Policy Wordings

    Insured Under Property Insurance Policy Should Comply With Post-Loss Policy Conditions

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Contract, Breach of Contract, and Material Breach of Contract

    Top 10 Take-Aways: the ABA Forum's 2024 Mid-Winter Meeting

    Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability Cannot Be Disclaimed or Waived Under Any Circumstance

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

    Colorado Legislative Update: HB 20-1155, HB 20-1290, and HB 20-1348

    Safety Data: Noon Presents the Hour of Greatest Danger

    EO or Uh-Oh: Biden’s Executive Order Requiring Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects

    Hunton Insurance Lawyer, Adriana Perez, Selected to the National Association of Women Lawyers’ 2023 Rising List

    Bert Hummel Appointed to Chief Justice’s Commission on Professionalism

    "Decay" Found Ambiguous in Collapse Case

    Licensing Reciprocity Comes to Virginia

    Developers Can Tap into DOE’s $400 Million for Remote and Rural Clean Energy Projects
    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

    Insurer’s Duty to Indemnify Not Ripe Until Underlying Lawsuit Against Insured Resolved

    February 03, 2020 —
    A liability insurer has two duties: 1) the duty to defend its insured; and 2) the duty to indemnify its insured. With respect to the second duty – the duty to indemnify – this duty is typically “not ripe for adjudication unless and until the insured or putative insured has been held liable in the underlying action.” Hartford Fire Ins Co. v. Beazer Homes, LLC, 2019 WL 5596237, *2 (M.D.Fla. 2019) (internal quotation omitted). For instance, Beazer Homes involved an insurance coverage dispute stemming from construction defects. An owner sued its general contractor for construction defects relating to stucco problems. The general contractor paid for the repairs. The general contractor then sued its stucco subcontractor to recover the costs it incurred. The subcontractor tendered the defense of the lawsuit to its commercial general liability insurer which is defending its insured-subcontractor under the commonly issued reservation of rights. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

    March 28, 2012 —

    The Texas Court of Appeals has ruled in the case La Tierra de Simmons Familia Ltd. V. Main Event Entertainment, LP. The trial court had found for Main Event. On appeal, the court threw out some of the grounds on which the trial court had reached its decision.

    The case involved two commercial lots in northwest Austin, Texas. The uphill tract (Phase III of the Anderson Arbor development) diverts its runoff onto the lower tract (the “Ballard tract”). The owners of the Ballard tract claim that “the drainage system was designed or constructed in a manner that has damaged and continues to damage the Ballard tract.”

    Both tracts have undergone changes of ownership since the construction of the drainage system in 2004. At the time the drainage system was constructed, the parcel was owned by Sears Roebuck and Co. Sears later sold the property. Main Event Entertainment is the current tenant. Likewise, the Ballard tract was previously owned by the Ballard Estate which sold the property to La Tierra on an “as is” basis in 2007.

    After La Tierra bought the Ballard tract, La Tierra’s engineer “witnessed and videotaped what he described as ‘flooding’ on the Ballard tract caused by storm water discharge from the Anderson Arbor drainage system during a rainfall event.” La Tierra determined that an adequate drainage system would cost about $204,000. Development plans were put on hold.

    La Tierra sued Main Event and various other parties associated with the uphill tract, seeking “actual damages for (1) decrease and loss in rental income due to delay in obtaining the development permit, (2) interest on carrying costs during that time period, (3) the cost to build a water conveyance system on the Ballard tract, (4) engineering fees incurred to redesign the water conveyance system, (5) unspecified out-of-pocket real estate expenses, and (6) property devaluation occasioned by the need to construct an expensive water conveyance system.” The trial court never reached these claims, ruling instead that La Tierra lacked standing, that its claims were barred under the statute of limitations, and that there was no evidence of damage.

    La Tierra appealed, arguing that “(1) the summary-judgment evidence does not conclusively establish that property damage claims accrued or were discovered prior to September 11, 2007, which is within the limitations period and was after La Tierra purchased the property; (2) even if the property was damaged before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract, standing exists based on the assignments of interest from the Ballard Estate heirs, and the discovery rule tolls limitations until the injury was discovered on September 11, 2007; (3) limitations does not bar La Tierra's request for injunctive relief; (4) La Tierra's water code claim against Main Event and M.E.E.P. is viable based on their control over the drainage system, which makes them necessary and indispensable parties for injunctive relief; (5) La Tierra presented more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a fact issue on damages, causation, and other essential elements of its causes of action; and (6) the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the defendants' objections to La Tierra's summary-judgment evidence.”

    The appeals court concluded that La Tierra’s second claim was irrelevant to standing, as La Tierra “obtained assignments from the Ballard Estate heirs ? nearly one year after the lawsuit was initially filed.” Nor did the court accept their first point. The water system had been operating unaltered since January, 2004, with monthly maintenance and inspection to maintain its designed operation. Further, a feasibility report La Tierra received stated that “over sixteen acres drain into those ponds, and thus onto this site.” The court noted that “the underlying facts giving rise to a cause of action were known before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract.”

    The court concluded that the drainage issue is a permanent injury, but that it “accrued before La Tierra acquired an ownership interest in the property.” As La Tierra has standing, the appeals court ruled that it was improper for the trial court to rule on the issues. The appeals court dismissed the questions of whether the case was barred under the statute of limitation and also the question of whether or not La Tierra had damages.

    As the issue of standing would not allow La Tierra to bring the suit, the appeals court found for the defendants, dismissing the case for this single reason, and otherwise affirming the ruling of the lower court.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Maui Wildfire Cleanup Advances to Debris Removal Phase

    February 05, 2024 —
    Contractors hauled the first truckload of debris from homes destroyed by last year’s wildfires in Lahaina, Hawaii, on Jan. 16. The move marked the beginning of the second phase of debris removal efforts coordinated by federal, state and local officials. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insureds' Experts Insufficient to Survive Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    October 17, 2023 —
    The magistrate recommended that insurer's motion for summary judgment be granted due to the insureds' expert's inability to present genuine issues of material fact. Walker v. Century Sur. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142408 (E.D. Texas July 17, 2023). The insureds' property sustained damage from Hurricane Laura. Colonial Claims inspected the property for Century and reported that a portion of the roof was damaged by the hurricane. Century paid insureds $2,212,34. Van Fisher, an engineer with Envista Forensics, then inspected the interior of the property on Century's behalf. Fisher reported that there was some covered interior damage caused by a leak from a storm-created opening in the roof. However, Fisher further reported that there was other interior damage caused by existing water leaks not attributed to the hurricane and thus not covered by the policy. Century then paid the insureds an additional $485.05 based on Fisher's inspection. 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

    Five-Year Peak for Available Construction Jobs

    December 11, 2013 —
    There are more job openings in construction now than there have been since 2008. The October jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 124,000 job openings in construction. With the demand for workers, some builders have experienced labor shortages, according to the National Association of Home Builders. The NAHB expects the trend to continue into 2014, “if firms can find workers with the right skills.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    SFAA and Coalition of Partners Encourage Lawmakers to Require Essential Surety Bonding Protections on All Federally-Financed Projects Receiving WIFIA Funds

    February 21, 2022 —
    February 17, 2022 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) in collaboration with 15 trade associations, sent a letter strongly encouraging members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, led by Chairman Tom Carper (D-DE) and Ranking Member Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV), to require payment and performance protections on federally-financed infrastructure projects receiving Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loans, including public-private projects (P3s). “As the Environment and Public Works Committee looks at legislation in the second session of the 117th Congress to continue the important work of addressing our nation’s water infrastructure, we urge the Committee to amend the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program to help protect taxpayer funds, workers, subcontractors and suppliers, including Small and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program participants and subcontractors, who build water infrastructure especially in at-risk low income communities,” said Lee Covington, president and CEO, SFAA. The coalition of partners includes: American Property and Casualty Association American Subcontractor Association Business Coalition for Fair Competition Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers Finishing Contractors Association International International Union of Operating Engineers Mechanical Contractors Association of America National Association of Electrical Contractor National Association of Minority Contractors National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies National Association of Surety Bond Producers Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors’ National Association The Association of Union Constructors The Construction Employers of America Women Construction Owners and Executives The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan trade association representing all segments of the surety and fidelity industry. Based in Washington, D.C., SFAA works to promote the value of surety and fidelity bonding by proactively advocating on behalf of its members and stakeholders. The association’s more than 450 member companies write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. For more information visit www.surety.org. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Sub-Contractor

    July 25, 2022 —
    Interpreting Connecticut law, the federal district court had that the insured sub-contractor was entitled to a defense. County Wide Mech. Servs. LLC v. Regent Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86726 (D. Conn. May 13, 2022). The underlying plaintiff, The Saybrook at Haddam, entered a contract with PAC Group to serve as general contractor for construction of an addition to The Saybrook's facility. PAC Group sub-contracted with County Wide Mechanical Services to install the HVAC system. The HVAC system was put into service on November 14, 2014. In October 2019, The Saybrook filed the underlying action against PAC group, County Wide, and others. The underlying complaint alleged that there had been at least seven "critical failures" of the HVAC system. As a result, The Seabrook had to replace multiple compressors and several circuit boards, valves, and other components. Further, the entire system had to be replaced. The underlying complaint alleged breach of contract against PAC Group and County Wide. In addition to the alleged breach of contract between The Saybrook and County Wide, the Saybrook also alleged it was a third-party beneficiary of PAC Group's contract with County Wide regarding installation of the HVAC system. PAC Group cross-claimed against County Wide, asserting one count of contractual indemnification and one count of breach of contract under the PAC Group's contract with County Wide. 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

    The Irresistible Urge to Build Cities From Scratch

    November 21, 2018 —
    Embedded in the cerebral folds of every city planner who’s ever lived, there’s a cluster of neurons that lights up like Las Vegas when confronted with the possibility of a blank slate. It started with Hippodamus, the man Aristotle claimed was the father of urban planning. When the Persians destroyed his hometown of Miletus, Hippodamus discovered a bright side to catastrophe: The attackers had erased all the regrettable improvisations that, over the centuries, had made a mess of the place. Tasked with rebuilding, he seized his chance to impose order upon chaos. And so the concept of the urban grid was born. Ever since, the dream of carte blanche has proved an all-but-irresistible seduction. Leonardo da Vinci drafted detailed sketches of an “ideal city” after the plague ravaged Milan, and a few hundred years later, Frank Lloyd Wright designed a metropolis that solved the problem of vehicular congestion via a network of helicopter taxis. Every so often, this urge in city planners breaks out into a full-scale epidemic, such as the one that spread throughout Europe and North America in the early 1900s. Known as the “garden city movement,” it aimed to counter the indignities of the Industrial Revolution by creating planned communities with plenty of green space. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Monte Reel, Bloomberg