BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield 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


    Five Steps Employers Should Take In the Second Year Of the COVID-19 Pandemic

    Construction Termination Issues Part 4: What to Do When They Want to Fire You, the Architect or Engineer

    Phoenix Flood Victims Can’t Catch a Break as Storm Nears

    Thank You!

    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

    An Insurance Policy Isn’t Ambiguous Just Because You Want It to Be

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    U.S. Supreme Court Weighs in on Construction Case

    Mondaq’s 2023 Construction Comparative Guide

    Will The New U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Deal Calm Industry Jitters?

    Contractors: Beware the Subordination Clause

    Understanding Liability Insurer’s Two Duties: To Defend and to Indemnify

    Manhattan Condos at Half Price Reshape New York’s Harlem

    Biden Administration Focus on Environmental Justice Raises Questions for Industry

    Texas Public Procurements: What Changed on September 1, 2017? a/k/a: When is the Use of E-Verify Required?

    Bert Hummel Appointed to Chief Justice’s Commission on Professionalism

    Coverage Denied for Ensuing Loss After Foundation Damage

    Certain Private Projects Now Fall Under Prevailing Wage Laws. Is Yours One of Them?

    The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on Construction Businesses

    You Can Now Build a Multi-Million Dollar Home via Your iPad

    “Bound by the Bond”

    No Coverage Where Cracks in Basement Walls Do Not Amount to Sudden Collapse

    Georgia State and Local Governments Receive Expanded Authority for Conservation Projects

    After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

    Veterans Day – Thank You for Your Service

    Natural Hydrogen May Seem New in Town, but It’s Been Here All Along

    MGM Seeks to Demolish Harmon Towers

    Understanding the California Consumer Privacy Act

    Texas Law Bars Coverage under Homeowner’s Policy for Mold Damage

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Recognized Among The Top 50 Construction Law FirmsTM of 2023 by Construction Executive

    Did the Court of Appeals Just Raise the Bar for California Contractors to Self-Report Construction-Related Judgments?

    Deterioration of Bridge Infrastructure Is Increasing Insurance Needs

    Potential Extension of the Statutes of Limitation and Repose for Colorado Construction Defect Claims

    Canada’s Largest Homebuilder Sets U.S. Growth Plan

    Guilty Pleas Draw Renewed Interest In Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws

    The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Mediation in the Zero Sum World of Construction

    “A No-Lose Proposition?”

    New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

    Negligence Against a Construction Manager Agent

    Professor Stempel's Excpert Testimony for Insurer Excluded

    COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims Four Years Later: What Have We Learned?

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

    Indemnity Clauses That Conflict with Oregon Indemnity Statute Can Remain Partially Valid and Enforceable

    Turner Construction Selected for Anaheim Convention Center Expansion Project

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap - Undocumented Change Work

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Listed in the Best Lawyers in America© 2017

    Following Mishaps, D.C. Metro Presses on With Repairs

    How Helsinki Airport Uses BIM to Create the Best Customer Experience

    Smart Home Products go Mainstream as Consumer Demand Increases
    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

    BUILD Act Inching Closer To Reality

    July 08, 2011 —

    A select group of Senators have launched a marketing campaign for the BUILD Act. If this is the first you are hearing about the BUILD Act, do not fret. The Act still has a long way to go, but if successful it would bring a national infrastructure bank.

    I have been fascinated with the concept of a national infrastructure bank for quite some time. The idea has been around since the Clinton years ? and perhaps beyond. The Act’s purpose is to create a national bank (American Infrastructure Financing Authority) to provide loans and loan guarantees to encourage private investment in upgrading America’s infrastructure. For a number of years, we have seen similar legislation float around Congress. But, none of those initiatives have gained as much traction as BUILD.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

    Court Rules that Collapse Coverage for Damage Caused “Only By” Specified Perils Violates Efficient Proximate Cause Rule and is Unenforceable

    January 26, 2016 —
    In Vardanyan v. Amco Ins. Co. (No. F069953, filed 12/11/15) a California appeals court held that policy wording that the collapse coverage for damage “caused only by” certain specified perils did not mean “solely” by those specified perils, but that coverage may nonetheless apply even if excluded causes contributed to the loss, under the Insurance Code section 530 and the efficient proximate cause rule. In Vardanyan, the insured made a claim for water damage from unknown origin to a rental house. An engineer concluded that the various sources of moisture—roof leaks, gutters and downspouts that did not channel the water away from the house, a faucet spraying water on the exterior of the house, leaking toilet and bathtub, and humidity—contributed to the damage to the house, along with poor construction, termite damage and decay. The insurer denied coverage citing multiple policy exclusions, including damage caused by seepage or leakage of water from a plumbing system; deterioration; mold, wet or dry rot; settling of foundations, walls or floors; earth movement; water damage; neglect; weather conditions; acts or decisions of any person; and faulty or defective design, workmanship, repair, construction, or maintenance. The insured retained a public adjuster who disagreed, in particular citing the policy’s “Other Coverage 9” coverage for collapse of a building or part of a building “caused only by one or more” of a list of perils, including hidden decay, hidden insect damage, and weight of contents, equipment, or people. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Statutes Authorizing Public-Private Partnership Contracting

    February 01, 2022 —
    Public-private partnerships are often cited as a key pathway to restoring and enhancing the nation’s infrastructure. They can be challenging arrangements to structure. (As a result of the pandemic, they have even suffered the indignity of having their “PPP” acronym coopted by the Paycheck Protection Program. With apologies to Small Business Administration practitioners, we use “PPP” in this article to refer to the infrastructure tool.) One gating condition to setting up a PPP is identifying the authority for a public entity to use a contracting method that does not run afoul of the general requirements that (i) works of improvement be let to the lowest responsive bid by a responsible bidder and (ii) design services be awarded through a qualifications-based selection process. Integrated forms of project delivery that vest in a single concessionaire multiple design, construction, financing, operation, maintenance and entrepreneurial roles must find an exception to any applicable background rules. Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. James, Pillsbury and Shade Oladetimi, Pillsbury Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Oladetimi may be contacted at shade.oladetimi@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Recording “Un-Neighborly” Documents

    April 03, 2019 —
    In September 2018, in Baumgartner v. Timmins, 245 Ariz. 334, 429 P.3d 567, the Arizona Court of Appeals provided further clarification on what constitutes an “encumbrance” on a property for purposes of Arizona’s statutory scheme prohibiting the recording of “false documents.” The statute, A.R.S. § 33-420, prohibits the recording of documents that a person knows to be forged, are groundless, or that contain material misstatements (or false claims). A person who claims an “interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against” real property who records such documents can be held liable for $5,000 or treble the actual damages caused by the recording (whichever is greater), A.R.S. § 33-420(A), and perhaps even be found guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor, A.R.S. § 33-420(E). At issue in Baumgartner were neighbors fighting about CC&Rs—a typical neighborhood fight. In 2015, some of the neighbors filed suit against the Timminses for violating the CC&Rs. The Timminses did not contest the lawsuit, resulting in a default judgment. In what the Court of Appeals characterized as a lawsuit filed by the Timminses “in apparent response to the [first] lawsuit and resulting default judgment,” the Timminses created, signed, and recorded affidavits contending that the Plaintiffs in the original lawsuit were themselves “in violation of several provisions of the CC&Rs.” The Plaintiffs then filed suit again against the Timminses, this time contending that the Timminses had violated A.R.S. § 33-420 by recording the affidavits because the affidavits, the Plaintiffs contended, created encumbrances on their properties. The Apache County Superior Court agreed, and issued a final judgment nullifying the recorded documents and awarding the Timminses damages, along with their attorneys’ fees and costs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bob Henry, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Henry may be contacted at bhenry@swlaw.com

    Women Make Their Mark on Construction Leadership

    April 22, 2019 —
    In the era of the Lean In movement and the Women’s March, women are finding their voices and using them. In politics, in the classroom and even on the playing field, women’s participation and leadership are breaking records. However, this is not the case in the board room—especialy in the C-suite. The Russell 3000 Index, a market index that benchmarks the U.S. Stock Market, found that only 9 percent of top executive positions were filled by women. The construction industry reflects this low participation of female executives. Women in construction only number 9 percent across the board of the industry. Seven percent of all construction executives are women and only 3 percent of the Fortune 500 construction companies have a female construction manager. Most are in sales and office roles (about 45 percent). Russell 3000 also found that women who are in the C-suite usually fill more HR- or administrative-related positions with very few in COO or CEO positions. Women in leadership need to have real decision making power to progress further. On the upside, women in construction tend to have less of a pay gap than other industries—about 5 percent compared to 20 percent. Though she be but little, She is Fierce Despite their small numbers, women executives in construction are paving the way for others to access leadership. In 1984, 11 women created Women Construction Owners and Executives, an organization for support and professional development. Their purpose is to promote women into leadership, assist women in executive positions and encourage more women to join the industry. The National Association of Women in Construction and Women in Construction Operations are also resources and networks with thousands of members. Reprinted courtesy of Annalisa Enrile & Oliver Ritchie, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. 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

    Connecticut Appellate Court Breaks New Ground on Policy Exhaustion

    April 26, 2021 —
    The Connecticut Appellate Court recently issued a wide-ranging opinion, Continental Casualty Co. v. Rohr, Inc.,[1] which significantly extended the current restrictive view on when a general liability policy can be considered exhausted so as to trigger overlying excess coverage. The case marks a further step away from Judge Augustus Hand’s almost-century-old ruling in Zeig v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.,[2] which held that an underlying policy could be “exhausted” by a below-limits settlement as long as the insured was willing to “fill the gap” between the settlement amount and the limits of the policy.[3] In recent years, courts in California and elsewhere have increasingly walked back Zeig’s broad ruling – holding in Qualcomm v. Certain Underwriters,[4] for example, that an insured’s below-limits settlement with primary carriers does not exhaust the limits of primary coverage, or allow the insured to access overlying excess coverage.[5] Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    OSHA Investigating Bridge Accident Resulting in Construction Worker Fatality

    October 29, 2014 —
    SI Live reported that “[t]he federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has opened a probe into an early-morning truck accident at the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge that left a construction worker dead Wednesday.” The accident occurred in New York “when a truck laying asphalt backed into [the worker] and crushed him.” Ted Fitzgerald, OSHA spokesman, stated, “OSHA did respond and has opened an inspection to determine whether or not there were violations of workplace safety standards in connection with this fatality,” as quoted by SI Live. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of