BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim 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


    General Contractors Have Expansive Common Law and Statutory Duties To Provide a Safe Workplace

    One Shot to Get It Right: Navigating the COVID-19 Vaccine in the Workplace

    Navigating Threshold Arbitration Issues in Construction Contracts

    Feds Used Wire to Crack Las Vegas HOA Scam

    Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding

    Cleveland Condo Board Says Construction Defects Caused Leaks

    Park Avenue Is About to Get Something It Hasn’t Seen in 40 Years

    Is The Enforceability Of A No-Damage-For-Delay Provision Inappropriate For Summary Judgment

    How Does Your Construction Contract Treat Float

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/27/21)

    Get to Know BJ Siegel: Former Apple Executive and Co-Founder of Juno

    Boilerplate Contract Language on Permits could cause Problems for Contractors

    Courts Will Not Rewrite Your Post-Loss Property Insurance Obligations

    Resulting Loss From Faulty Workmanship Covered

    California Subcontractor Gets a Kick in the Rear (or Perhaps the Front) for Prematurely Recorded Mechanics Lien

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers!

    North Carolina Court Rules In Favor Of All Sums

    New York City Construction: Boom Times Again?

    Additional Insured Coverage Confirmed

    Deadlines Count for Construction Defects in Florida

    Stormy Skies Ahead? Important News Regarding a Hard Construction Insurance Market

    Bankruptcy on a Construction Project: Coronavirus Edition

    No Third-Quarter Gain for Construction

    Insurer's Motion in Limine to Dismiss Case for Lack of Expert Denied

    Florida Court Puts the Claim of Landlord’s Insurer In The No-Fly Zone

    Don’t Spoil Me: Oklahoma District Court Rules Against Spoliation Sanctions

    Texas Supreme Court Cements Exception to “Eight-Corners” Rule Through Two Recent Rulings

    Court of Appeals Upholds Default Judgment: Serves as Reminder to Respond to Lawsuits in a Timely Manner

    Builders Beware: Smart Homes Under Attack by “Hide ‘N Seek” Botnet

    Formaldehyde-Free Products for Homes

    Building Growth Raises Safety Concerns

    UK's Biggest Construction Show Bans 'Promo Girls'

    S&P Suspended and Fined $80 Million in SEC, State Mortgage Bond Cases

    Revel Closing Shows Gambling Is No Sure Thing for Renewal

    Project Delivery Methods: A Bird’s-Eye View

    Subsidence Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Landslide

    SCOTUS to Weigh Landowners' Damage Claim Against Texas DOT

    Planes, Trains and Prevailing Wages. Ok, No Planes, But Trains and Prevailing Wages Yes

    Wildfire Is Efficient Proximate Cause of Moisture Reaching Expansive Soils Under Residence

    Storm Breaches California River's Levee, Thousands Evacuate

    EPA Expands Energy Star, Adds Indoor airPLUS

    Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL

    New York Building Boom Spurs Corruption Probe After Death

    Illinois Joins the Pack on Defective Construction as an Occurrence

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    Coronavirus, Force Majeure, and Delay and Time-Impact Claims

    Congratulations 2016 DE, NJ, and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Vacation Rentals: Liability of the Owner for Injury Suffered by the Renter

    Fed Inflation Goal Is Elusive as U.S. Rents Stabilize: Economy

    Developer Transition - Maryland Condominiums
    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

    Court of Appeals Discusses the Difference Between “Claims-Made” and “Occurrence-Based” Insurance Policies

    May 31, 2021 —
    As most contractors know, scope, price and time are the “big” three in any construction contract. Nearly as important, however, are the insurance provisions. Patricularly, when things go bad on a construction project. As the next case, Guastello v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company 61 Cal.App.5th 97 (2021) discusses, the difference between “claims-made” versus “occurrence-based” coverage can be extremely important. The Guastello Case In 2003 and 2004, subcontractor C.W. Poss Inc. built retaining walls in the Pointe Monarch housing development in Dana Point, California. Poss performed all related excavation, ground and grading work. In 2006, Thomas Guastello purchased a home in the development, and in January 2010, a retaining wall close to his lot suffered a massive failure that causing over $700,000 in damages. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    First Circuit Rules Excess Insurer Must Provide Coverage for Fuel Spill

    January 18, 2021 —
    The First Circuit recently held that a “Special Hazard and Fluids Limitation Endorsement” was ambiguous and therefore there was excess coverage for a fuel spill that occurred after a tanker-truck overturned. In Performance Trans. Inc. v. General Star Indem. Co., the First Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of General Star Indemnity Company. The District Court held that the excess policy General Star issued to Performance Trans. Inc. precluded coverage for a spill that resulted in the leaking of thousands of gallons of fuel. The District Court relied on the existence of a total pollution exclusion to bar coverage and held that the policy’s Special Hazards and Fluids Limitation Endorsement could not create an ambiguity that would afford coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at sahmad@HuntonAK.com Ms. Perez may be contacted at pereza@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Make Your Business Great Again: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    April 20, 2017 —
    There is a lot of uncertainty regarding how President Trump’s immigration and trade policies will affect the construction industry. In his Construction Today article, Partner Steven Cvitanovic discusses how businesses can remain competitive and profitable during this period of uncertainty, including updating contract documents, recruiting and retaining employees, and increasing cybersecurity efforts. “If you do not know when your contract documents were last updated, it’s probably been too long,” writes Cvitanovic. “Unlike wine, contract documents only get worse with age.” Cvitanovic advises teams to sit down together and review contracts to see if they still meet the firm’s needs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com

    In One of the First Civil Jury Trials to Proceed Live in Los Angeles Superior Court During Covid, Aneta Freeman Successfully Prevailed on Behalf of our Client and Obtained a Directed Verdict and Non-Suit

    July 05, 2021 —
    In one of the first civil jury trials to proceed live in Los Angeles Superior Court during Covid, Aneta Freeman obtained a rare directed verdict and nonsuit in a complex, high exposure action, after seven days of trial. The dismissal was obtained after the parties rested after the liability phase of the bifurcated trial. Ms. Freeman represented a general contractor in an action in which Plaintiff alleged that the general contractor and the County of Los Angeles (which was dismissed earlier on statutory immunity grounds) created a dangerous condition when they allegedly allowed mosquitos to breed in 2015 during construction at a flood retention basin in Marina Del Rey. Plaintiff contracted West Nile Virus, and subsequently developed myasthenia gravis and a myriad of other conditions and ailments. Plaintiff relied heavily on a 2015 report from the Los Angeles West Vector Control District which suggested that the construction was the source of mosquitos which resulted in a “cluster” of West Nile Virus cases in the Marina Del Rey and surrounding areas. In pretrial motions, Ms. Freeman successfully excluded that report, opinion testimony from the vector control former executive director, narrowed the scope of plaintiff’s entomologist testimony, and excluded Brad Avrit from testifying for the Plaintiff on construction standard of care. The matter proceeded with a stipulated a 10 person jury, and all participants socially distanced and masked throughout the trial. Witnesses appeared live, with the exception of Plaintiff’s entomologist, portions of whose video deposition were played. Following seven days of trial after both parties rested, Judge Mark Young granted the general contractor’s nonsuit and also, in the alternative, a directed a verdict for our client. Plaintiff had demanded $10,000,000 of the County and the general contractor globally prior to trial, and $5,000,000 from the general contractor. The general contractor issued two CCP 998s, which were ignored by Plaintiff. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aneta B. Freeman, Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb
    Ms. Freeman may be contacted at afreeman@cgdrlaw.com

    North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage,” Allocation and Exhaustion-Related Issues Arising Out of Benzene-Related Claims

    January 04, 2023 —
    On December 16, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court decided Radiator Specialty Co. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., 2022 N.C. LEXIS 1122 (Dec. 16, 2022), in which it addressed coverage issues arising out of claims by individuals alleging injury from exposure to benzene contained in the insured’s products. Affirming in part and reversing in part the intermediate appellate court’s decision, the court held: (1) an “exposure trigger” applied; (2) defense and indemnity costs were subject to pro-rata allocation; and (3) vertical exhaustion applied to the duty to defend under certain umbrella policies. Two justices concurred in part and dissented in part. I. Background In Radiator Specialty, the insured (RSC) was named in hundreds of underlying suits arising from individual plaintiffs’ alleged exposure to benzene contained in its products. Between 1971 and 2012, RSC was insured under primary, umbrella and excess liability policies issued by various insurers. In 2013, RSC sued the insurers in North Carolina state court, seeking coverage for approximately $45 million in defense and indemnity costs incurred for the underlying claims. In 2016, the trial court decided motions for summary judgment on a number of coverage issues. Following a bench trial in 2018, the trial court entered final judgment, which required the insurers to reimburse $1.8 million of RSC’s past costs. The rulings were appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which issued a decision in 2020. In 2021, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted RSC’s and certain insurers’ petitions for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ decision. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces New Partner Bahaar Cadambi

    May 06, 2019 —
    Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that Newport Beach attorney Bahaar Cadambi has been elected to partnership. "Bahaar has worked hard to become an integral part of the firm's litigation practice, delivering exceptional value to her colleagues and clients at every opportunity," said the firm's Managing Partner, Paul Tetzloff, "We are proud to count her among our partners and look forward to her continued success and contributions." Cadambi concentrates her practice in business, insurance, and real estate litigation. She represents businesses, homebuilders, developers, and general contractors in complex, multi-party real estate, construction defect, and insurance disputes. She also represents individuals and businesses across a variety of business litigation matters. Her approach to litigation ensures that clients are informed of all potential strategies, the consequences of those strategies, and how the implementation of those strategies will affect their business. Passionate about the legal community, Cadambi is an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law and an active member of CREW (Commercial Real Estate Women Orange County). She is also a Barry's Bootcamp and yoga enthusiast, lover of all things interior design, avid traveler, devoted wife, and favorite aunt to two energetic nieces and one cheerful nephew. Bahaar earned her B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles and her J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of Law. Prior to joining Newmeyer & Dillion, she served as a Judicial Extern for the Honorable William Alsup in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Bahaar Cadambi: bahaar.cadambi@ndlf.com
      Practice Areas
    • Business Litigation
    • Construction Litigation
    • Insurance Law
    About Newmeyer & Dillion For almost 35 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Montana Supreme Court Tackles Decade-Old Coverage Dispute Concerning Asbestos Mineworker Claims

    December 20, 2021 —
    On November 23, 2021, the Montana Supreme Court issued an almost unanimous decision in National Indemnity Company v. State of Montana, a ten-year-old coverage dispute arising from claims against the State of Montana alleging it had failed to warn of asbestos dust conditions at vermiculite mining and milling operations in and around Libby, Montana (the Libby Mine) run by W.R. Grace & Company and its predecessors. Affirming in part and reversing in part rulings by the trial court that culminated in a $98 million judgment against the State’s CGL insurer from 1973 to 1975, the court addressed issues including the duty to defend/estoppel, the number of occurrences, “trigger of coverage,” and, in a case of first impression, allocation under Montana law. Whether the Insurer Breached the Duty to Defend Depended Upon the Timeframe The court looked at whether (1) the insured provided sufficient information to bring the claims within the possibility of coverage under the subject policy and (2) the insurer gave “the necessary substance to” fulfilling its duty to defend at four points in the relevant timeframe:
    1. The insurer did not breach its duty at the time the State initially tendered the Libby Mine claims because the State defended the claims through its self-insurance program, hired its own counsel, managed the litigation, made its own defense decisions, and took the position with the insurer that the matter was “under control” and “nothing was left to be done[.]”
    Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams and Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Will Protecting Copyrights Get Easier for Architects?

    November 28, 2022 —
    Like any creative business, architects rely on their intellectual property. Their designs are at the center of their work. For example, as we discussed in a previous post, many architects nowadays focus on creating new ways for their building designs to be environmentally friendly and sustainable. However, nearly every form of intellectual property faces the risk of theft or infringement in the business world. Architects face unique challenges with their copyrights – as well as risks. Copyright Issues in the Architecture World One of the biggest issues, of course, is that there are many aspects of building designs that architects cannot protect by copyright. This is simply because various details are fundamental in the construction of every building. One person cannot own the rights to such a common design. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott L. Baker, Baker & Associates
    Mr. Baker may be contacted at slb@bakerslaw.com