BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure 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


    Production of Pre-Denial Claim File Compelled

    Google Advances Green Goal With AES Deal for Carbon-Free Power

    Construction Companies Can Be Liable for “Secondary Exposure” of Asbestos to Household Members

    Fargo Shows Record Home Building

    Fence Attached to Building Covered Under Dwelling Provisions

    Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement

    Firm Seeks to Squash Subpoena in Coverage CD Case

    Mediation Confidentiality Bars Malpractice Claim but for How Long?

    Construction Warranties: Have You Seen Me Lately?

    Excess-Escape Other Insurance Provision Unenforceable to Avoid Defense Cost Contribution Despite Placement in Policy’s Coverage Grant

    Traub Lieberman Partners Lenhardt and Smith Obtain Directed Verdict in Broward County Failed Repair Sinkhole Trial

    General Contractor’s Ability to Supplement Subcontractor Per Subcontract

    Mobile Home Owners Not a Class in Drainage Lawsuit

    Right to Repair Reform: Revisions and Proposals to State’s “Right to Repair Statutes”

    The 2021 Top 50 Construction Law Firms™

    Increases in U.S. Office Rents Led by San Jose and Dallas

    Nevada Senate Bill 435 is Now in Effect

    Construction Contractors Must Understand Retainage In 2021

    Appraisal Appropriate Despite Pending Coverage Issues

    Blockbuster Breakwater: Alternative Construction Method Put to the Test in Tampa Bay

    California Supreme Court Allows Claim Under Unfair Competition Statute To Proceed

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

    Baby Boomer Housing Deficit Coming?

    Cape Town Seeks World Cup Stadium Construction Collusion Damages

    Mandatory Arbitration Isn’t All Bad, if. . .

    Nevada Update: Nevada Commissioner of Insurance Updates Burning Limits Statute with Emergency Regulation

    Under Privette Doctrine, A Landowner Delegates All Responsibility For Workplace Safety to its Independent Contractor, and therefore Owes No Duty to Remedy or Adopt Measures to Protect Against Known Hazards

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Tar Escaping From Roof

    Norfolk Southern Accused of Trying to Destroy Evidence of Ohio Wreck

    Thank You Once Again for the Legal Elite Election for 2022

    Judge Nixes SC's $100M Claim Over MOX Construction Delays

    Wisconsin Court Applies the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Negligence Claims for Purely Economic Losses

    Employee Exclusion Bars Coverage for Wrongful Death of Subcontractor's Employee

    Staten Island Villa Was Home to Nabisco 'Nilla' Wafer Inventor

    No Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims under Kentucky Law

    Saving Manhattan: Agencies, Consultants, Contractors Join Fight to Keep New York City Above Water

    CDJ’s #4 Topic of the Year: KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County

    Will There Be Construction Defect Legislation Introduced in the 2019 Colorado Legislative Session?

    Construction Problems May Delay Bay Bridge

    California Attempts to Tackle Housing Affordability Crisis

    Athletic Trainers Help Workers Get Back to the Jobsite and Stay Healthy After Injury

    Selected Environmental Actions Posted on the Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulator Actions

    Mercury News Editorial Calls for Investigation of Bay Bridge Construction

    Groundbreaking on New Boulder Neighborhood

    San Francisco Museum Nears $610 Million Fundraising Goal

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose in June at a Slower Pace

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

    White House’s New Draft Guidance Limiting NEPA Review of Greenhouse Gas Impacts Is Not So New or Limiting

    No Coverage for Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

    General Contractor Intervening to Compel Arbitration Per the Subcontract
    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

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    October 28, 2011 —

    An upstate New York man who was injured when an unsecured truss fell off the railings of a scissor lift has settled for $500,000. As the accident happened at the building site for a casino for the Seneca Nation, attorneys for the construction firm had argued that New York labor laws were inapplicable as the injury happened on Seneca Nation land. The state appeals court ruled that as none of the parties involved were Native Americans, it was not internal to the affairs of the Seneca Nation.

    Read the full story...

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

    Florida SB 2022-736: Construction Defect Claims

    February 07, 2022 —
    *Special thank you to SDV Law Clerk Iliriana Fteja for contributing to this article. A new bill (SB 2022-736) was recently introduced to the Florida Senate. The proposed amendments to the statutes of limitations and repose could significantly impact construction defect claims by effectively creating additional exposure to contractors and insurance carriers. The proposed bill requires all actions founded on the design, planning, or construction of an improvement to real property to be commenced within four years after the time to commence an action begins. Under the proposed amendment, the time to commence an action runs from the date of actual possession by the owner, the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, or the date of completion of the contract or termination of the contract between the professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and their employer. This provision would effectively alter the time to commence an action to whichever triggering event is earliest instead of the latest triggering event per the previous statute. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kelly A. Johnson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Johnson may be contacted at KJohnson@sdvlaw.com

    Home Builders and Developers Beware: SC Supreme Court Beats Up Hybrid Arbitration Clauses Mercilessly

    November 15, 2022 —
    Today’s guest post is by one of my favorite construction lawyers and friends, Burr partner Ned Nicholson in our Columbia, SC office. Ned regularly represents clients in construction defect and compensation claims, manufacturer/dealer disputes, and insurance coverage lawsuits. He is also a South Carolina certified mediator. Ned can be reached at nnicholson@burr.com or (803) 799-9800. If you are a homebuilder, residential housing developer, construction industry insurer, or any one of the many participants in the industry providing affordable and decent housing for the citizens of South Carolina, you are already aware that South Carolina courts have for decades prioritized the promotion of consumer (i.e., home buyer) rights, usually at the expense of the providers of housing. There is nothing inherently wrong with that; the goal is laudable. But as in so many things, the implementation has been extremely costly for the residential construction industry as a savvy plaintiff’s bar has taken advantage of grey areas that are inevitably created in our judicial system. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Devries, Burr & Forman LLP
    Mr. Devries may be contacted at mdevries@burr.com

    Anchoring Abuse: Evolution & Eradication

    October 09, 2023 —
    Over the past few years, the plaintiff bar has expanded its use of improper anchoring tactics. Historically, improper anchoring was seen as a risky tactic in which a plaintiff’s counsel would suggest an outrageous figure for pain and suffering during summation in the hope that the lay jury would either award it or split the difference (cut the suggested figure by half) and, either way, return an excessive or runaway verdict. Plaintiff counsel deployed the tactic infrequently through the turn of the century for fear of alienating the jury by appearing greedy. Two interrelated factors happened to change this dynamic. First, the plaintiff bar worked extremely hard in the intervening years with great success to shed its “ambulance chaser” stereotype by marketing itself as the “protector of the vulnerable”. Second, with the rise in Reptile and punitive tactics spawned in part by the publication of the Reptile handbook, the plaintiff bar also discovered that juries were not alienated by outrageous anchors as long as they were preceded by Reptile commentary essentially to “prime” the jury to punish the defendant rather than compensate the plaintiff with its award. This is not speculation. I recall sitting outside a courtroom with one of New York’s top plaintiff attorneys in 2006 during deliberations on a catastrophic personal injury trial, during which he conceded to me that he was worried he had asked the jury for too large a figure (it was not even eight figures). A decade later in 2016, that same attorney felt no trepidation in requesting nearly $100 million for a comparable injury. He fed the jurors a steady diet of Reptile tactics from start to finish and they dutifully awarded the requested figure. Our research confirms that this two-step strategy (Reptile + improper anchor) preceded every New York nuclear verdict returned from 2010-2022. The same is almost certainly true of most nuclear verdicts in other jurisdictions. Reprinted courtesy of Tim Capowski, Kahana Feld and Chris Theobalt, Kahana Feld Mr. Capowski may be contacted at tcapowski@kahanafeld.com Mr. Theobalt may be contacted at ctheobalt@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Expands on Scope of Coverage for Soft Cost Claims

    February 14, 2023 —
    The California federal district court case of KB Home v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., No. 8:20-cv-00278-JLS-JDE, (C.D. Cal. August 23, 2022), provides much needed guidance for cases involving builder's risk insurance claims for soft cost coverage. The case stems from damage to several of KB Home’s residential building sites caused by a severe rainstorm in January 2017. Each home site was a smaller part of a large housing development project. The damage caused significant delay in the completion of some individual home sites, although there was limited evidence of delay to the overall housing development project. As a result, KB Home sought coverage under a builder’s risk policy purchased from Illinois Union for both hard costs and soft costs. “Hard costs” are the costs directly associated with repairing property damage to the sites. Conversely, “soft costs” are indirect expenses associated with project delays caused by such property damage and repair efforts. For example, hard costs would include labor and materials, whereas the soft costs claimed by KB Home included additional real estate taxes, construction loan interest, and advertising and promotional expenses incurred because of the delays. Illinois Union paid the claim for the hard costs, but denied the soft costs claim. KB Home filed suit and Illinois Union eventually filed a motion for summary judgment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Caitlin N. Rabiyan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Rabiyan may be contacted at CRabiyan@sdvlaw.com

    Insurance Coverage for COVID-19? Two N.J. Courts Allow Litigation to Proceed

    March 06, 2022 —
    Courts across the nation have struggled to determine whether insurance policies that provide coverage for “direct physical loss or damage” insure losses stemming from COVID-19. Many courts have been applying an overly stringent pleading standard, inappropriately granting insurers’ motions to dismiss as a result of the insureds’ purported failure to allege that COVID-19 caused damages covered by their policies or because certain exclusions supposedly barred coverage. However, two New Jersey state courts recently decided these issues in favor of the insureds in well-reasoned opinions that give proper deference to procedural pleading standards and substantive insurance coverage law. A. COVID-19 causes “direct physical loss or damage” In AC Ocean Walk, LLC v. American Guarantee and Liability Ins. Co., the New Jersey Superior Court held that physical alteration to an insured’s property is not a prerequisite to coverage for losses due to COVID-19. The insured, Ocean Casino, sued multiple insurers for COVID-19 losses, alleging that the virus caused Ocean Casino to shut down and suffer a loss of use of its property. Looking at the language of the policies, the court explained that each policy’s insuring agreement substantially read the same:
    “This policy insures against direct physical loss of, or damage caused by, a covered cause of loss to covered property, at an insured location [the casino] … subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions stated in this policy.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Barrese may be contacted at BBarrese@sdvlaw.com

    House Approves $715B Transportation and Water Infrastructure Bill

    July 11, 2021 —
    Another building block for infrastructure legislation has moved into place with the House’s approval of a five-year $715-billion surface transportation and water infrastructure package. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Business Interruption Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part

    February 16, 2016 —
    The court granted portions of the business interruption claim, while denying other portions. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Infogroup, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162810 (S. D. Iowa Nov. 30, 2015). Phoenix insured Infogroup's business buildings and personal business property, including data and data processing equipment. In late May 2011, warnings were issued of possible flooding from the Missouri River. On June 1, 2011, Infogroup moved and relocated its business operations and data centers away from the river and did not intend to return to the facilities. On July 19, 2011, Phoenix advanced $500,000 to Infogroup for anticipated claims under the policy. On August 22, 2011, heavy rain left surface water in the parking lot at Infogroup's facilities. Infogroup claimed that it suffered minor property damage during July and August, 2011, including damage to an uninterruptable power source and damage to a server. 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