BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failure
    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


    Best Lawyers Honors Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Names Four Partners ‘Lawyers of the Year’

    New Households Moving to Apartments

    A New Study on Implementing Digital Visual Management

    Modified Plan Unveiled for Chicago's Sixth-Tallest Tower

    Augmented and Mixed Reality in Construction

    EPA Rejects Most of N.Y.’s $511 Million Tappan Zee Loan

    Insurance Firm Defends against $22 Million Claim

    Construction Contracts Fall in Denver

    Saudi Prince’s Megacity Shows Signs of Life

    Gain in Home Building Points to Sustained U.S. Growth

    Traub Lieberman Partners Dana Rice and Jason Taylor Obtain Summary Judgment For Insurance Carrier Client in Missouri Federal Court Coverage Action

    Virginia General Assembly Helps Construction Contractors

    Traub Lieberman Partner Michael Logan and Associate Christian Romaguera Obtain Voluntary Dismissal in Favor of Construction Company Under the Vertical Immunity Doctrine

    Taylor Morrison v. Terracon and the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007

    2022 California Construction Law Update

    Claims against Broker for Insufficient Coverage Fail

    How Algorithmic Design Improves Collaboration in Building Design

    Building on New Risks: Construction in the Age of Greening

    Federal Energy Regulator Approves Rule to Speed Clean Energy Grid Links

    Contractors Struggle with Cash & Difficult Payment Terms, Could Benefit From Legal Advice, According to New Survey

    Failure to Comply with Sprinkler Endorsement Bars Coverage for Fire Damage

    Contractor Haunted by “Demonized” Flooring

    Texas Supreme Court to Rehear Menchaca Bad Faith Case

    Do Not Lose Your Mechanics Lien Right Through a Subordination Agreement

    Surety's Settlement Without Principal's Consent Is Not Bad Faith

    No Coverage Under Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    Janus v. AFSCME

    Insurer Must Defend and Indemnify Construction Defect Claims Under Iowa Law

    Court Holds That Parent Corporation Lacks Standing to Sue Subsidiary’s Insurers for Declaratory Relief

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in 2021 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!

    Competition to Design Washington D.C.’s 11th Street Bridge Park

    Nevada Insureds Can Rely on Extrinsic Facts to Show that An Insurer Owes a Duty to Defend

    Fourth Circuit Finds Insurer Reservation of Rights Letters Inadequate to Preserve Coverage Defenses Under South Carolina Law

    New York Court of Appeals Addresses Choice of Law Challenges

    The Treasures Inside Notre Dame Cathedral

    Insurer in Bad Faith Due to Adjuster's Failure to Keep Abreast of Case Law

    Drafting a Contractual Arbitration Provision

    Construction Law Alert: Concrete Supplier Botches Concrete Mix, Gets Thrashed By Court of Appeal for Trying to Blame Third Party

    New Case Law Alert: Licensed General Contractors Cannot Sue Owners to Recover Funds for Work Performed by An Unlicensed Subcontractor

    Be Sure to Dot All of the “I’s” and Cross the “T’s” in Virginia

    Federal Court Finds Occurrence for Faulty Workmanship Under Virginia Law

    What Types of “Damages Claims” Survive a Trustee’s Sale?

    Business Interruption, Food Spoilage Claims Resulting from Off Premise Power Failure Denied

    DC Circuit Approves, with Some Misgivings, FERC’s Approval of the Atlantic Sunrise Natural Gas Pipeline Extension

    Athens, Ohio, Sues to Recover Nearly $722,000 After Cyber Attack

    The “Unavailability Exception” is Unavailable to Policyholders, According to New York Court of Appeals

    Investigators Explain Focus on Pre-Collapse Cracking in Florida Bridge

    U.S. Construction Value Flat at End of Summer

    Sewage Treatment Agency Sues Insurer and Contractor after Wall Failure and Sewage Leak

    Haight’s San Diego Office is Growing with the Addition of New Attorneys
    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

    Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor's Employee

    November 17, 2016 —
    The Court of Appeal of the State of California – Second Appellate District in Khosh v. Staples Construction Company, Inc. (10/26/16 – Case No. B268937) affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant under the Privette doctrine where plaintiff presented no evidence that the defendant affirmatively contributed to his injuries. Plaintiff Al Khosh (“Khosh”) was injured while performing electrical work on a project. He was employed by Myers Power Products, Inc. (“Myers”) a subcontractor for the project. Khosh sued the general contractor, Staples Construction Company, Inc. (“Staples”) to recover damages for his injuries. Reprinted courtesy of Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Japan Quake Triggers Landslides, Knocks Power Plant Offline

    September 10, 2018 —
    A magnitude 6.7 earthquake occurred on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido on Sept. 6, leaving at least seven dead and damaging buildings and structures in the region, including a 1,650MW coal-fired thermal power plant that was taken offline. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, ENR
    Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    March 28, 2012 —

    The Duphuys of Baton Rouge Louisiana found themselves needing to argue both sides of an issue, according to the judge in Duphuy v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company. The Duphuys alleged that the drywall in their home “emits odorous gases that cause damage to air-condition and refrigerator coils, copper tubing, electrical wiring, computer wiring, and other household items.” Additionally, they reported damage to “their home’s insulation, trimwork, floors, cabinets, carpets, and other items” which they maintained were “covered under the ‘ensuing loss’ portion of their policy.”

    Their insurer declined coverage, stating that the damages were not a “direct, physical loss,” and even if they were “four different exclusions independently exclude coverage, even if such loss occurred.” The policy excludes defective building materials, latent defects, pollutants, and corrosion damage. The court noted that “ambiguities in policy exclusions are construed to afford coverage to the insured.”

    The court did determine that the Duphuys were not in “a situation where the plaintiffs caused the risk for which they now seek coverage.” The judge cited an earlier case, In re Chinese Drywall, “a case with substantially similar facts and construing the same policy” and in that case, “property damage” was determined to “include the loss of use of tangible property.” The court’s conclusion was that the Duphuys “suffered a direct, physical loss triggering coverage under their policy.”

    Unfortunately for the Duphuys, at this point the judge noted that while they had a “direct, physical loss,” the exclusions put them “in the tough predicament of claiming the drywall is neither defective nor its off-gassing corrosive or a pollutant, but nonetheless damage-causing.”

    In the earlier Chinese Drywall case, the judge found that “faulty and defective materials” “constitutes a physical thing tainted by imperfection or impairment.” The case “found the drywall served its intended purpose as a room divider and insulator but nonetheless qualified under the exclusion, analogizing the drywall to building components containing asbestos that courts have previously determined fit under the same exclusion.” In the current case, the judge concluded that the drywall was “outside the realm of coverage under the policy.”

    The court also found that it had to apply the corrosion exclusion, noting that the plaintiffs tried to evade this by stating, “simplistically and somewhat disingenuously, that the damage is not caused by corrosion but by the drywall itself.” The plaintiffs are, however, parties to another Chinese drywall case, Payton v. Knauf Gips KG, in which “they directly alleged that ‘sulfides and other noxious gases, such as those emitted from [Chinese] drywall, cause corrosion and damage to personal property.’” As the court pointed out, the Duphuys could not claim in one case that the corrosion was caused by gases emitted by the drywall and in another claim it was the drywall itself. “They hope their more ambiguous allegations will be resolved in their favor and unlock the doors to discovery.”

    The court quickly noted that “the remaining damage allegations are too vague and conclusory to construe” and permitted “exploration of the latent defect and pollution exclusions.”

    The judge concluded that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient facts to establish coverage under the ensuing loss provision, stating that the “plaintiffs must allege, at the very least, how the drywall causes damage to the trimwork, carpet, etc., not simply that it does so.” Given the court’s determinations in the case, the plaintiffs’ motion was dismissed.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: Tenth Circuit Upholds the “Complaint Rule”

    May 12, 2016 —
    In Colorado, the “complaint rule” requires insurance carriers to provide a defense to its insured when the allegations contained in the complaint allege any set of facts that may fall within an insurance policy. Some insurers have pushed back on this rule arguing that it may cause an insurer to exercise its duty to defend although the underlying facts ultimately do not fall within the policy. In KF 103-CV, LLC v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, 2015 WL 6517782, the Tenth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals upheld the complaint rule. In its decision, the Tenth Circuit cited several Colorado state court rulings recognizing the courts’ intent to incentivize insurers to defend policies that may facially fall within the terms of the policy. Where there is uncertainty about coverage, the Tenth Circuit cited a Colorado Supreme Court case stating, “[t]he appropriate course of action for an insurer who believes that it is under no obligation to defend, is to provide a defense to the insured under the reservation of its rights.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Adria Robinson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Ms. Robinson may be contacted at robinson@hhmrlaw.com

    Lost Rental Income not a Construction Defect

    November 27, 2013 —
    A judge in Colorado has ruled that although the homeowner’s policy excluded construction defects from coverage, lost rental income and the cost of deck repair involved in fixing a defective drainage system were. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Turkey to Start Building 200,000 Homes in March, Erdogan Says

    February 20, 2023 —
    President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has announced that Turkey will begin constructing almost 200,000 homes as early as March in areas devastated by twin earthquakes that hit the southeast of the country two weeks ago. Erdogan emphasized the severity of the earthquake’s impact, drawing parallels to historical events that wreaked havoc in Anatolia, the heartland of modern Turkey. “With faith, courage and patience, we have resisted numerous political and social upheavals for centuries, such as the Crusades and the Mongol invasions,” he said. The construction of 199,739 new homes will begin in 11 provinces, including the hardest-hit Hatay and Kahramanmaras, Erdogan said. The death toll from the earthquakes has risen to 41,156 while over 114,000 people have been rescued from the rubble. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Taylan Bilgic, Bloomberg

    Ohio Supreme Court Case to Decide Whether or Not to Expand Insurance Coverage Under GC’s CGL Insurance Policies

    August 14, 2018 —
    According to W. Matthew Bryant of Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, the Ohio Supreme Court will be deciding whether or not a general contractor's commercial general liability ("CGL") insurance policy may provide coverage for damage caused by a subcontractor's defective construction work. Bryant explained the status quo in Ohio: “Since 2012, Ohio has followed the rule that a CGL policy would not cover damage caused by a contractor to the contractor's own work.” That could change depending on how the Ohio Supreme Court rules in an upcoming case: “The Ohio Supreme Court will decide whether to affirm or overturn Ohio Northern University v. Charles Construction Services, Inc., 77 N.E.3d 538 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017) ("ONU"), an Ohio Court of Appeals decision holding that CGL coverage may exist for property damage caused by faulty work performed by the subcontractor of an insured general contractor.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    We Knew Concrete Could Absorb Carbon—New Study Tells How Much

    December 08, 2016 —
    Concrete’s large carbon footprint—that is, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted during the cement manufacturing process—is estimated to be 5% of industrial CO2 emissions, a source of concern in the battle against human-caused climate change. But last month, an international research team reported that substantial quantities of CO2 are reabsorbed, or sequestered, by cement-based products over their life cycle. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Thomas F. Armistead, Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at enr.com@bnpmedia.com