BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction forensic 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


    Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolution Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

    Discussion of History of Construction Defect Litigation in California

    Pipeline Safety Violations Cause of Explosion that Killed 8

    How the Pandemic Pushed the Construction Industry Five Years Into the Future

    Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Serves as Chair of the ABA Minority Trial Lawyer Committee’s Programming Subcommittee

    SkenarioLabs Uses AI for Property Benchmarking

    ABC Announces Disaster Relief Efforts and Resources Following Hurricane Milton

    DC District Court Follows Ninth Circuit’s Lead Dismissing NABA’s Border Wall Case

    Florida extends the Distressed Condominium Relief Act

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 3- The Last Straw

    To Sea or Not to Sea: Fifth Circuit Applies Maritime Law to Offshore Service Contract, Spares Indemnity Provision from Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” and Tier 2 for Orange County by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2023

    Avoiding Wage Claims in California Construction

    Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate

    Parking Reform Takes Off on the West Coast

    Lower Manhattan Condos Rival Midtown’s Luxury Skyscrapers

    Virtual Reality for Construction

    New York Court Holds Insurer Can Recover Before Insured Is Made Whole

    Concerns About On-the-job Safety Persist

    Coverage Denied for Ensuing Loss After Foundation Damage

    Construction Defect Settlement in Seattle

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Best Lawyers®

    Washington, DC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium Expires

    Virtual Jury Trials of Construction Disputes: The Necessary Union of Both Sides of the Brain

    NY Project Produces America's First Utility Scale Wind Power

    Los Angeles Construction Sites May Be on Fault Lines

    Statutory Time Limits for Construction Defects in Massachusetts

    Conn. Appellate Court Overturns Jury Verdict, Holding Plaintiff’s Sole Remedy for Injuries Arising From Open Manhole Was State’s Highway Defect Statute

    EPA Announces that January 2017 Revised RMP Rules are Now Effective

    Improper Means Exception and Tortious Interference Claims

    Rebuilding the West: Construction Considerations After the Smoke Clears

    Appreciate The Risks You Are Assuming In Your Contract

    Cooperation and Collaboration With Government May Be on the Horizon

    Louisiana Couple Sues over Defects in Foreclosed Home

    Changes To Commercial Item Contracting

    Insurer Springs a Leak in Its Pursuit of Subrogation

    Three-Year Delay Not “Prompt Notice,” But Insurer Not “Appreciably Prejudiced” Either, New Jersey Court Holds

    Payne & Fears Recognized by Best Lawyers in 2025 Best Law Firms®

    No Additional Insured Coverage for Subcontractor's Work Outside Policy Period

    A Race to the Finish on Oroville Dam Spillway Fix

    Nevada’s Changing Liability Insurance Landscape—State Insurance Regulator Issues Emergency Regulation and Guidance Addressing Controversial “Defense-Within-Limits” Legislation

    #6 CDJ Topic: Construction Defect Legislative Developments

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2020

    Design Immunity Defense Gets Special Treatment on Summary Judgment

    Even Toilets Aren’t Safe as Hackers Target Home Devices

    Minnesota Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade for the Second Time

    Perovskite: The Super Solar Cells

    Adjuster's Report No Substitute for Proof of Loss Under Flood Policy

    Nebraska Joins the Ranks—No CGL Coverage for Faulty Work

    Michigan Supreme Court Concludes No Statute of Repose on Breach of Contract
    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

    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    May 26, 2011 —

    A three-judge panel issued a per curium ruling on May 23 in Fairview Heights Condo. v. Investors (N.J. Super., 2011), a case which the members of a condominium board argued: “that the judge erred by: 1) dismissing plaintiff’s claims against RLI based upon the statute of repose; 2) dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Luppinos based upon a lack of expert opinion; 3) barring the testimony of Gonzalez; and 4) barring the May 23, 1989 job site report.” The court rejected all claims from the condominium board.

    The court found that the building must be unsafe for the statute of repose to apply. They noted, “the judge made no findings on whether the water seepage, or the property damage caused by such seepage, in any way rendered the building, or any of the units, unsafe.” Further, “without a specific finding on the question of whether the defects had rendered the building ‘unsafe,’ defendants were not entitled to the benefit of the ten-year statute of repose.“

    On the second point, the court also upheld the lower court’s findings regarding the management company:

    “The report submitted by Berman establishes that the EIFS product was defective in its design and would therefore have failed from the outset. The defects in that product were, according to Berman, not prone to repair or other mitigation. Therefore, even if defendants did not appropriately inspect or repair the EIFS, their failure to do so would have had no impact on the long-term performance of the EIFS exterior cladding. As plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on these questions, the judge properly granted summary judgment to the Luppinos on plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.”

    On the final two points, the judges noted “plaintiff maintains that the judge committed reversible error when he excluded the Gonzalez certification and the 1989 job site report prepared by Raymond Brzuchalski.” They saw “no abuse of discretion related to the exclusion of the Gonzalez certification, and reject plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary.” Of the job site report, they found, “no abuse of discretion in the judge's finding that the Brzuchalski 1989 job site report did not satisfy the requirements of N.J.R.E.803(c)(6).”

    Read the court’s decision

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

    Large Canada Employers and Jobsites Mandate COVID-19 Vaccines

    November 08, 2021 —
    The push for COVID-19 vaccine mandates is gaining traction in Canada’s construction industry, with governments, large project sites and major employers setting new inoculation deadlines. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap - Guided Choice Mediation

    November 05, 2024 —
    In the September 26, 2024 edition of Division 1's Toolbox Talk Series, Clifford Shapiro presented on Guided Choice Mediation (“GCM”) and how it can lead to better outcomes in construction disputes. GCM is an approach to mediation that focuses on early and efficient dispute resolution, which prominent mediators created as a public interest project. Shapiro described his particular variant of GCM based on his experience while acknowledging that other Guided Choice Mediators’ processes may differ from his in various ways. Shapiro’s brand of GCM focuses on ensuring that parties have reasonable expectations and appropriate settlement authority prior to arriving at a mediation. Some of the strategies to help accomplish these noble goals are (i) early mediator engagement, (ii) mediator facilitation of information exchange, (iii) mediator involvement with insurance issues (particularly important in construction defect cases, especially those with multiple defendants), (iii) pre-mediation ex parte meetings, and (iv) mediator participation in risk analysis. These strategies are not typical in the more traditional/historic approach to mediation in which mediation is scheduled based on a scheduling order, mediation statements are sent to the mediator roughly a week before the scheduled mediation (and sometimes not even shared with anyone other than the mediator), and the parties speak with the mediator for the first time on the day of the mediation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas J. Mackin, Cozen O’Connor
    Mr. Mackin may be contacted at dmackin@cozen.com

    The Impact of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict on the Insurance Industry, Part One: Coverage, Exposure, and Losses

    August 22, 2022 —
    (August 10, 2022) - The Russia-Ukraine conflict has far-reaching implications for the insurance industry and for insurers and insureds alike. Many corporate policy holders around the world have withdrawn or scaled back operations with Russia and/or Russian-based corporations. In doing so, the corporate policy holders left behind property, assets, and inventory in Russia and/or suffered losses in revenue. Corporate policy holders are looking to their insurers to offset the losses. It is estimated that the insurance and reinsurance markets could face losses at nearly $20 billion. S&P Global predicts that losses could reach $35 billion. Additionally, the conflict in Ukraine creates uncertainty for insurers on how to navigate the influx of claims, especially from the cybersecurity sector. A key issue with the rise in claims is coverage. The general rule is that coverage under a policy for any loss must be evaluated by considering the policy language, the law applicable to the governing jurisdiction, and the facts surrounding the loss. Many policies contain a “war exclusion” clause, which can exclude property losses resulting from acts of war or governmental instability. However, corporate policy holders may have Political Risk Insurance, which can provide coverage for losses for items such as damaged property, seized property, and lost assets at a time of political turmoil or war. Even if a policy has Political Risk Insurance, it does not guarantee payout. Careful analysis of the policy language and facts surrounding the loss must still take place. For example, in the event of property claims, an insurer must still determine whether the loss is related to the conflict and/or whether the subject property was voluntarily abandoned or seized. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Kopit, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Kopit may be contacted at Michael.Kopit@lewisbrisbois.com

    Although Property Damage Arises From An Occurrence, Coverage Barred By Business Risk Exclusions

    July 08, 2011 —

    The homeowners hired the insured to raise the structure of their home twenty-four inches above the flood zone. Lafayette Ins. Co. v. Peerboom, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58985 (S.D. Miss. June 2, 2011). When the insured’s crew returned from lunch one day, they found the house had fallen from hydraulic jacks being used to raise the structure a few inches at a time. There was substantial damage to the entire structure.

    The homeowners sued, asserting several claims, including negligence and breach of contract. The complaint alleged the homeowners entered a contract with the insured to raise their structure while maintaining its integrity. However, the insured failed to use proper equipment, which caused the house to fall and be completely destroyed.

    The insured tendered the claim to its insurer, Lafayette Insurance Company. Lafayette defended under a reservation of rights and filed suit for a declaratory judgment. Lafayette’s subsequent motion for summary judgment contended there was no “occurrence” alleged in the underlying complaint and, even if there was, the business risk exclusions barred coverage.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    New York State Trial Court: Non-Cumulation Provision in Excess Policies Mandates “All Sums” Allocation

    October 02, 2018 —
    On August 18, 2018, the New York Supreme Court, New York County, confirmed a referee’s finding that “all sums” allocation was required under excess policies issued by Midland Insurance Company because they included a non-cumulation provision. See Matter of Liquidation of Midland Ins. Co., Index No. 041294/1986 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 18, 2018). Midland was a multi-line carrier that wrote a substantial amount of excess coverage for Fortune 500 companies. In the 1980s, Midland faced significant exposure for environmental, asbestos and product liability claims. In 1986, it was placed in liquidation and the New York State Superintendent of Insurance (the Liquidator) was appointed as its receiver. Since then, the New York Supreme Court has presided over the liquidation proceedings. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Paul Briganti, White & Williams LLP
    Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

    No Duty to Indemnify When Discovery Shows Faulty Workmanship Damages Insured’s Own Work

    November 07, 2012 —
    Our post last week addressed the duty to defend when alleged faulty workmanship caused loss to property adjacent to where the insured was working. See Pamerin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Constr., Inc., 2012 Wis. App. LEXIS 698 (Wis. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2012) [post here]. Today, we report on recent developments in the same case where the court determined, despite earlier finding the insurer owed a defense, it had no duty to indemnify. Pamperin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Constr., Inc., 2012 Wisc. App. LEXIS 793 (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2012). Hendricks contracted to “prepare the site and supply and install concrete, tamped concrete, and colored concrete” at several service stations. The owner sued Hendricks, alleging the concrete “was defective and/or the work performed was not done in a workman-like manner and resulted in damages, and will require replacement.” Pekin Insurance Company agreed to defend Hendricks subject to a reservation of rights. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii.
    Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Construction Spending Had Strongest Increase in Four Years

    January 13, 2014 —
    The Commerce Department announced a 1% gain in construction spending, from October to November, which is the biggest gain that construction has seen since March 2009, according to The Spokesman-Review. The gain brought construction spending to an adjusted annual rate of $934.4 billion. The Spokesman-Review further reports that residential construction rose 1.9% in November, while commercial construction rose 2.7%. Government construction, on the other hand, fell 1.8%. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of