BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration 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


    It’s Too Late, Lloyd’s: New York Federal Court Finds Insurer Waived Late Notice Defense

    Be a Good Neighbor: Protect Against Claims by an Adjacent Landowner During Construction

    Think Twice About Depreciating Repair Costs in Our State, says the Tennessee Supreme Court

    Defenses Raised Three-Years Too Late Estop Insurer’s Coverage Denial

    Iowa Court Holds Defective Work Performed by Insured's Subcontractor Constitutes an "Occurrence"

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (11/8/23) – New Handling of Homelessness, Decline in Investments into ESG Funds, and Shrinking of a Homebuyer’s Dollar

    California Supreme Court Finds Negligent Supervision Claim Alleges An Occurrence

    General Contractor’s Excess Insurer Denied Equitable Contribution From Subcontractor’s Excess Insurer

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports CDCCF Charity at 2014 WCC Seminar

    Roni Most, Esq., Reappointed as a City of Houston Associate Judge

    EPA Announces Decision to Retain Current Position on RCRA Regulation of Oil and Gas Production Wastes

    Appraisers May Determine Causation

    Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: J. PAUL ALLEN

    Is Equipment Installed as Part of Building Renovations a “Product” or “Construction”?

    Rise in Single-Family Construction Anticipated in Michigan

    Duty to Defend Triggered by Damage to Other Non-Defective Property

    A Deep Dive Into an Undervalued Urban Marvel

    New WOTUS Rule

    A Court-Side Seat: “Inholdings” Upheld, a Pecos Bill Come Due and Agency Actions Abound

    Asbestos Confirmed After New York City Steam Pipe Blast

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

    Canada Cooler Housing Market Boosts Poloz’s Soft Landing

    Wyoming Supreme Court Picks a Side After Reviewing the Sutton Rule

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 01/26/22

    The Buck Stops Over There: Have Indemnitors Become the Insurers of First and Last Resort?

    New Defendant Added to Morrison Bridge Decking Lawsuit

    How Tech Is Transforming the Construction Industry in 2019

    Brown Act Modifications in Response to Coronavirus Outbreak

    New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim

    Challenging and Defending a California Public Works Stop Payment Notice: Affidavit vs. Counter-Affidavit Process

    No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Arkansas Law

    Ireland Said to Plan Home Loans Limits to Prevent Bubble

    Court Says KBR Construction Costs in Iraq were Unreasonable

    Surety Trends to Keep an Eye on in the Construction Industry

    Occurrence Found, Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Bar Coverage for Construction Defects

    California Supreme Court Finds that the Notice-Prejudice Rule Applicable to Insurance is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State

    Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben and Associate Laura Puhala Win Summary Judgment in Favor of Insurer, Determining it has No Duty to Defend

    Just Because You Label It A “Trade Secret” Does Not Make It A “Trade Secret”

    Liquidated Damages Clause Not Enforced

    Three Reasons Late Payments Persist in the Construction Industry

    CSLB Begins Processing Applications for New B-2 License

    AIA Releases Decennial 2017 Updates to its Contracts Suites

    Climate-Proofing Your Home: Upgrades to Weather a Drought

    What Should Be in Every Construction Agreement

    Bel Air Mansion Construction Draws Community Backlash

    Trends and Issues which Can Affect Workers' Compensation Coverage for Construction Companies

    Oregon Court of Appeals Rules That Negligent Construction (Construction Defect) Claims Are Subject to a Two-Year Statute of Limitations

    Developer Boymelgreen Forced to Hand Over Financial Records for 15 Broad Street
    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

    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

    $48 Million Award and Successful Defense of $135 Million Claim

    June 04, 2024 —
    Peckar & Abramson is proud to have represented one of the nation’s largest general contractors in the achievement of a $48 million award in its favor and the denial of a $135 million claim against it in Federal Court in the Middle District of Florida on May 3, 2024 arising out of the FDOT’s $2.3 billion reconstruction of I-4, a P3 project and the Department’s largest project ever in the State of Florida. After a 2-week bench trial, P&A secured the favorable decision which found that the general contractor client was entitled to recover $48 million on its affirmative claim against the party who initiated the lawsuit and that it did not breach its fiduciary duties and was not grossly negligent as was claimed which resulted in a denial of the initiating party’s $135 million claim in its entirety. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson

    Client Alert: Restaurant Owed Duty of Care to Driver Killed by Third-Party on Street Adjacent to Restaurant Parking Lot

    January 07, 2015 —
    In Annocki v. Peterson Enterprise, LLC, (Filed 11/14/2014, Certified for Publication 12/5/2014, No. B251434) the Court of Appeal, Second District, held a restaurant owed a duty of care to the driver of a motorcycle who died as a result of the negligent driving of a third party exiting the restaurant’s parking lot. Decedent, Joseph M. Annocki, was driving his motorcycle on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, when it collided with the vehicle operated by Terry Allen Turner, who was exiting the parking lot of “Geoffrey’s" restaurant, which was owned and operated by the Defendant, Peterson Enterprise, LLC (“Peterson”). The parents of the decedent (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Peterson, alleging Peterson failed to adequately staff the restaurant parking lot, which caused Turner to become confused and make an illegal left turn onto Pacific Coast Highway, thereby causing the accident that killed decedent. Plaintiffs further alleged Peterson knew, or should have known, that its parking lot and driveway were designed and in such condition as to create a danger of decreased visibility of the adjacent highway, and failed to adequately provide signage directing patrons that only right turns could be made onto Pacific Coast Highway. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II and Kristian B. Moriarty Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Midview Board of Education Lawsuit Over Construction Defect Repairs

    February 04, 2014 —
    Midview Local Schools Board of Education in Grafton, Ohio, “filed a lawsuit asking Lorain County Common Pleas Court to order the Ohio School Facilities Commission to help pay for repairs on three new schools,” according to The Morning Journal. Scott Goggin, Midview’s Superintendent, told The Morning Journal: “Water-stained ceilings and weeping windows in three new elementary schools, built with financial help and cooperation of the OSFC Expedited Local Partnership Program, irritated the district for months.” “The lawsuit,” as reported by The Morning Journal “claimed other school districts received financial help from the state when correcting repairs to their schools built through the same program.” Furthermore, the lawsuit stated that “OSFC failed to assess the total classroom facilities needs of the school district, and to share the costs of repairing defects.” The Morning Journal reported, “The lawsuit asks for restitution of the state’s share of correcting the construction defects, the costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorney’s fees, and further relief the court decides is just and fair.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Court of Appeal Clarifies Intent of Faulty Workmanship Exclusions

    October 26, 2017 —
    Last month, in Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc., 1 a California Court of Appeal clarified the meaning of the frequently asserted j.(5) and j.(6) exclusions of the standard commercial general liability policy; an issue the court deemed one of “first impression” for the state. The court took a close look at how courts nationwide handle the exclusions and relied on the policy language to come to a policyholder-friendly decision. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Casanova may be contacted at tlc@sdvlaw.com

    Cross-Motions for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings for COVID-19 Claim Denied

    May 24, 2021 —
    The court denied both parties' motions for partial judgment on the pleadings seeking clarification of the policy's contamination exclusion. Thor Equities, LLC v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62967 (S.D. N.Y. March 31, 2021). Thor was a commercial landlord, renting properties across the country to hundreds of tenants, for use in a variety of businesses, including office space, retail stores, restaurants, and bars. When state governments began shutting down businesses and issuing stay-at-home orders in March 2020, many of Thor's tenants had to close shop and sought abatements or other accommodations. Thor alleged it suffered significant business interruption as a result of the pandemic. 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

    Construction Lien Needs to Be Recorded Within 90 Days from Lienor’s Final Furnishing

    March 22, 2018 —

    A lienor needs to record its construction lien within 90 days of its final furnishing date. This final furnishing date excludes punchlist, warranty, or the lienor’s own corrective work. A lien recorded outside of the 90-day window will be deemed invalid.

    The opinion in In re: Jennerwein, 309 B.R. 385 (M.D. Fla. 2004) provides a good discussion of this 90-day window. This matter dealt with a debtor / owner’s bankruptcy where the owner was contesting the validity of a construction lien by its pool contractor. The owner contended that the lienor’s lien was recorded outside of this 90-day window thus rendering the lien invalid. The bankruptcy court was determining the validity of the lien.

    In this matter, the owner hired a swimming pool contractor to construct a pool. On October 25, 2002, the pool contractor installed pavers around the pool. After this was performed, the pool contractor realized the owner was unable to obtain the financing to pay for the pool. As a result, the pool contractor ceased doing any more improvements. But, neither the pool contractor nor the owner terminated the contract. Then, on November 27, 2002, the pool contractor sent a supervisor to the property to inspect the pool (work-in-place), the pool equipment, the installed pavers, made a list of the unfinished work, and remove any debris. On January 27, 2003, the pool contractor recorded its lien.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Construction Firm Sues City and Engineers over Reservoir Project

    October 28, 2011 —

    The city of Fremont, Ohio and Arcadis have been sued by Trucco Construction. Trucco had been hired by the city to build a reservoir designed by Arcadis, the News-Messenger reports. Peter Welin, attorney for Trucco, said that he found “startling evidence of the company’s negligence” when he deposed Arcadis engineers. “This project could never be built the way they bid it.”

    Their suit alleges that Arcadis and the city were aware that the site was not conducive to construction and also that Arcadis failed to be a neutral party in discussions between Trucco and the city regarding compensation.

    Sam Wamper, an attorney for Fremont, said he was going to file a motion which would include “quite an interesting story,” but declined to elaborate.

    Read the full story...

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