BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expert
    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


    Construction Litigation Roundup: “I Never Had a Chance”

    PSA: New COVID Vaccine ETS Issued by OSHA

    Possible Real Estate and Use and Occupancy Tax Relief for Philadelphia Commercial and Industrial Property Owners

    Coverage, Bad Faith Upheld In Construction Defect Case

    Who Will Pay for San Francisco's $750 Million Tilting Tower?

    Charlotte, NC Homebuilder Accused of Bilking Money from Buyers

    Leonard Fadeeff v. State Farm General Insurance Company

    April Rise in Construction Spending Not That Much

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

    New Jersey Condominium Owners Sue FEMA

    BHA Sponsors the 9th Annual Construction Law Institute

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold Due to Insurer

    Construction Litigation—Battles on Many Fronts

    Fifth Circuit Reverses Insurers’ Summary Judgment Award Based on "Your Work" Exclusion

    Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

    Construction Manager’s Win in Michigan after Michigan Supreme Court Finds a Subcontractor’s Unintended Faulty Work is an ‘Occurrence’ Under CGL

    Woodbridge II and the Nuanced Meaning of “Adverse Use” in Hostile Property Rights Cases in Colorado

    Private Statutory Cause of Action Under Florida’s Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act

    There’s an Unusual Thing Happening in the Housing Market

    Firm Offers Tips on Construction Defects in Colorado

    Banks Loosening U.S. Mortgage Standards: Chart of the Day

    Loose Bolts Led to Sagging Roof in Construction Defect Claim

    St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc.

    Almost Nothing Is Impossible

    Five Construction Payment Issues—and Solutions

    Court of Appeals Invalidates Lien under Dormancy Clause

    Condo Board May Be Negligent for not Filing Construction Defect Suit in a Timely Fashion

    Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Duty to Defend When Case Law is Uncertain

    NYC Airports Get $500,000 Makeover Contest From Cuomo

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

    A Glimpse Into Post-Judgment Collections and Perhaps the Near Future?

    A Call to Washington: Online Permitting Saves Money and the Environment

    New California Employment Laws Affect the Construction Industry for 2019

    Locals Concerns over Taylor Swift’s Seawall Misdirected

    The A, B and C’s of Contracting and Self-Performing Work Under California’s Contractor’s License Law

    Colorado’s Workers’ Compensation Act and the Construction Industry

    Topic 606: A Retrospective Review of Revenue from Contracts with Customers

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

    Executive Insights 2024: Leaders in Construction Law

    Deducting 2018 Real Property Taxes Prepaid in 2017 Comes with Caveats

    Wall Street’s Favorite Suburban Housing Bet Is Getting Crowded

    New Iowa Law Revises Construction Defects Statute of Repose

    An Overview of the New EPA HVAC Refrigerant Regulations and Its Implications for the Construction Industry

    California Supreme Court Protects California Policyholders for Intentional Acts of Employees

    Insurer Must Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims

    Hunton Insurance Recovery Partner Michael Levine Quoted on Why Courts Must Consider the Science of COVID-19

    Bremer Whyte Sets New Precedent in Palos Verdes Landslide Litigation

    Buffalo-Area Roof Collapses Threaten Lives, Businesses After Historic Snowfall

    How to Determine the Deadline for Recording a California Mechanics Lien

    New York Supreme Court Building Opening Delayed Again
    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

    Intricacies of Business Interruption Claim Considered

    January 07, 2015 —
    Reaching into the weeds to analyze a business interruption claim, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals determined the cost of ordinary payroll could be included in the calculation of net profit or loss in determining business loss income when business is resumed quickly after a fire. Verrill Farms, LLC v. Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 Mass. App. LEXIS 145 (Mass. App. Ct. Nov. 4, 2014). The insured suffered a fire loss at its farm store. Within two days, the business was reopened at alternate locations at reduced capacity. Within a month, the business had resumed nearly full capacity in temporary locations. No employees were laid off. This allowed the insured to maintain its business and generate income. The insured submitted a claim for loss of business income, based on its loss of net income in the year after the fire. The insurer paid a sum considerably less than the claim based upon its interpretation of what expenses could be included in a calculation of net profit or loss in order to determine loss of business income. The trial court held that the insurer did not have to pay the cost of ordinary payroll beyond the sixty-day limit, and granted summary judgment in the insurer's favor. 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

    What I Love and Hate About Updating My Contracts From an Owners’ Perspective

    July 25, 2022 —
    The Construction Owners Association of America (COAA) is the largest association of construction owners in the United States. COAA just held its Spring Connect conference in downtown Baltimore on the University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMB) campus. One session featured “What I Love and Hate About Updating My Contracts from an Owners’ Perspective.” ConsensusDocs’ Executive Director & Senior Counsel Brian Perlberg spoke on a panel with Joe Cleves of Taft Law and Pen Wolf from the Cleveland Clinic. Pen Wolf from Cleveland Clinic outlined the process he used to update his contracts recently. The Cleveland Clinic builds facilities annually and owns different facilities at different locations. The clinic employs over 75,000 employees. For an owner with a broad reach like the Cleveland Clinic, Wolf recommended using outside counsel with construction expertise to update contracts. He concluded that while it was a significant effort, the endeavor to update the Clinic’s contracts was absolutely worth the time commitment and expense. Wolf shared that updating the Clinic’s contracts has generated positive reviews internally and externally. Now their written agreements better reflect their business practices in their construction design and construction program. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of ConsensusDocs

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    January 06, 2012 —

    In a case the judge attributed to “shoddy masonry work,” the US District Court of Illinois has rendered a decision in AMCO Insurance Company v. Northern Heritage Builders. Northern Heritage built a home in Chicago for Michael McGrath (who joined Northern Heritage as a defendant). According to the decision, “seven months after he moved into the house, McGrath noticed water coming in the house and warped millwork.” This was attributed to porous block, installed by the mason with Northern Heritage’s knowledge.

    McGrath sued National Heritage for both the damage to his house and its contents. The court rejected his claim for the contents. For the damages to his house, he was awarded $601,570.50 in damages. He also sued his homeowner’s insurance carrier for damages not covered in his suit against National Heritage. There he was awarded $1,130,680.16.

    AMCO informed National Heritage that it had neither duty to defend nor duty to indemnify. The judge considered whether AMCO had a duty to defend. Under Illinois law, “damage to a construction project resulting from construction defects is not an ‘accident’ or ‘occurrence’ because it represents the natural and ordinary consequence of faulty construction.” However, it is noted that while if the defects lead only to damage to the project itself, there is no occurrence, “if the building owner asserts damages to other property besides the construction itself, there is an ‘occurrence’ and ‘property damage.’” The judge further noted that were construction defects an occurrence, “shoddy work” would be rewarded by double pay, once by the homeowner and a second time by the insurer. Judge Kendall concluded that as McGrath had alleged damage to the contents of his house, AMCO had a duty to defend National Heritage.

    She then looked at the issue of whether AMCO had a duty to indemnify. Should they pay the $601,570.50? Judge Kendall noted that “the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend.” The key point here was that once McGrath’s insurance carrier covered him for the damage to the contents of his house, “AMCO’s duty to defend ended.” Once McGrath “only sought damages for the natural consequences of faulty workmanship” there was no occurrence, hence nothing for AMCO to cover.

    Judge Kendall granted a summary dismissal of AMCO’s claim that they had no duty to defend while upholding their claim that they had no duty to indemnify.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Caterpillar Forecast Tops Estimates as Construction Recovers

    January 28, 2014 —
    Caterpillar Inc. (CAT), the largest maker of mining and construction equipment, forecast earnings and revenue for 2014 that topped analysts’ estimates as the recovery in the U.S. building industry spurs sales of bulldozers and excavators. Sales will be about $56 billion plus or minus 5 percent, the company said in a statement today. The average of 13 estimates compiled by Bloomberg was $55.5 billion. Profit will be $5.85 a share excluding $400 million to $500 million in restructuring costs. That’s more than the $5.77 average estimate. Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar also said it approved a $10 billion share buyback plan through 2018 and will repurchase about $1.7 billion in stock in the first quarter that will complete its previous authorization. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shruti Date Singh, Bloomberg
    Ms. Singh may be contacted at ssingh28@bloomberg.net

    A Year-End Review of the Environmental Regulatory Landscape

    January 11, 2022 —
    Our guest today is Anne Idsal Austin, a nationally recognized environmental lawyer who has held several high-profile federal and state regulatory roles. As a partner who recently joined Pillsbury’s environmental and natural resources practice, she provides strategic consulting and policy advice, helping clients navigate the dynamic regulatory and legal waters in an era of energy transition, decarbonization and an emphasis on ESG principles. Prior to joining Pillsbury, Anne was the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Air and Radiation, known as OAR or OAR, where she had primary oversight over United States clean air policy and regulation. Prior to that, she served as the EPA regional administrator for Region 6, overseeing all federal environmental programs in Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arkansas. Prior to joining EPA, Anne held several positions where she shaped environmental and energy policy at the highest levels of government in the state of Texas. Welcome to our podcast, Anne. Anne Austin: Thanks so much. It’s great to be here today, Joel. Joel Simon: Anne, I’m really excited for this chance to speak with you because there’s so much going on at the federal environmental policy level, and it would be great to have someone really knowledgeable present this to us in an organized fashion. So with that minor task ahead of you, could you start us off with a brief overview of the environmental regulatory landscape? Reprinted courtesy of Anne Idsal Austin, Pillsbury and Joel Simon, Pillsbury Ms. Austin may be contacted at anne.austin@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Simon may be contacted at joel.simon@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Funding the Self-Insured Retention (SIR)

    August 17, 2020 —
    Unlike a deductible, a self-insured retention (referred to an “SIR”) is, as the name suggests, a self-insured obligation of the insured before its insurer picks up coverage. The SIR needs to be exhausted by the insured (as the primary self-insurance component) before the carrier’s excess defense and indemnification obligations kick-in under the terms of the policy. However, an insured can generally exhaust an SIR by paying legal fees and costs associated with a claim. Oftentimes, the language in the policy requires the SIR to be paid for by the named insured or an insured under the policy. This was an issue addressed by the Florida Supreme Court in Intervest Const. of Jax, Inc. v. General Fidelity Ins. Co., 133 So.3d 494 (Fla. 2014). In this matter, a personal injury claimant asserted a claim against the contractor dealing with a residential home. The contractor hired a subcontractor to install attic stairs and the subcontract required the contractor to indemnify it. The owner of the house injured herself on the attic stairs and sued the contractor. The contractor, in turn, sought indemnification against the subcontractor that installed the attic stairs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Primer Debuts on Life-Cycle Assessments of Embodied Carbon in Buildings

    August 20, 2018 —
    A recently released primer for the use of a life-cycle assessment approach to analyze the environmental impacts of buildings is considered a small but necessary step toward the ambitious goal of getting to net-zero embodied carbon and operational greenhouse gas emissions in the construction, operation and decommissioning of buildings. The LCA guide comes after the release of the first-of-its-kind benchmarking database of embodied carbon in existing buildings. And another first—a tool to calculate embodied carbon in construction—is on the horizon. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Professional Liability Alert: Joint Client Can't Claim Privilege For Communications With Attorney Sued By Another Joint Client

    February 05, 2015 —
    In Anten v. Superior Court (No. B258437 – Filed 1/30/2015), the Second Appellate District held that when joint clients do not sue each other, but one of them sues their former attorney, the nonsuing client cannot prevent the parties to the malpractice suit from discovering or introducing otherwise privileged attorney-client communications made in the course of the joint representation. Under California Evidence Code §958, in lawsuits between an attorney and a client based on an alleged breach of a duty arising from their attorney-client relationship, communications relevant to the alleged breach are not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Similarly, Evidence Code §962 provides that if multiple clients retain or consult with an attorney on a matter of common interest and the joint clients later sue each other, then the communications between either client and the attorney made in the course of that relationship are not privileged in the suit between the clients. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com; Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of