BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultant
    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


    Home Building Up in Kansas City

    Sixth Circuit Affirms Liability Insurer's Broad Duty to Defend and Binds Insurer to Judgment Against Landlord

    Texas Walks the Line on When the Duty to Preserve Evidence at a Fire Scene Arises

    Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot and "Virus": One of These Things is Not Like the Other

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

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

    What is a “Force Majeure” Clause? Do I Need one in my Contract? Three Options For Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers to Consider

    Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

    Lewis Brisbois Promotes 35 to Partnership

    New York Bars Developers from Selling Condos due to CD Fraud Case

    Restaurant Wants SCOTUS to Dust Off Eleventh Circuit’s “Physical Loss” Ruling

    More Details Emerge in Fatal Charlotte, NC, Scaffold Collapse

    Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case

    Risky Business: Contractual Versus Equitable Rights of Subrogation

    The Death of Retail and Legal Issues

    Beginning of the 2020 Colorado Legislative Session: Here We Go Again

    Condo Association Settles with Pulte Homes over Construction Defect Claims

    Colorado Hotel Neighbors Sue over Construction Plans

    Mediation in the Zero Sum World of Construction

    Crane Firm Pulled Off NYC Projects Following Multiple Incidents

    Flint Water Crisis and America’s Clean Water Access Failings

    Research Project Underway to Prepare Water Utilities for Wildfire Events

    Can a Non-Signatory Invoke an Arbitration Provision?

    Seven Key Issues for Construction Professionals to Consider When Dealing With COVID-19

    In Florida, Exculpatory Clauses Do Not Need Express Language Referring to the Exculpated Party's Negligence

    CDJ’s #7 Topic of the Year: The Las Vegas Harmon Hotel Year-Long Demolition & Trial Begins

    Appellate Division Confirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owners in Action Alleging Labor Law Violations

    Underpowered AC Not a Construction Defect

    Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

    Mediation in the Zero Sum World of Construction

    Negligence Per Se Claim Based Upon Failure to Pay Benefits Fails

    John O’Meara is Selected as America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators

    Walkability Increases Real Estate Values

    California Posts Nation’s Largest Gain in Construction Jobs

    Texas EIFS Case May Have Future Implications for Construction Defects

    The Preservation Maze

    Arbitration Denied: Third Appellate District Holds Arbitration Clause Procedurally and Substantively Unconscionable

    Crime Policy Insurance Quotes Falsely Represented the Scope of its Coverage

    Overruling Henkel, California Supreme Court Validates Assignment of Policies

    Avoid a Derailed Settlement in Construction

    Suit Against Broker for Securing Inadequate Coverage Dismissed on Statute of Limitations Grounds

    Florida Federal Court Reinforces Principle That Precise Policy Language Is Required Before An Insurer Can Deny Coverage Based On An Exclusion

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap - Guided Choice Mediation

    Prefabrication Contract Considerations

    Call to Conserve Power Raises Questions About Texas Grid Reliability

    Congratulations to Partner Nicole Whyte on Being Chosen to Receive The 2024 ADL’s Marcus Kaufman Jurisprudence Award

    Insurer’s Attempt to Shift Cost of Defense to Another Insurer Found Void as to Public Policy

    Google’s Biggest Moonshot Is Its Search for a Carbon-Free Future

    Disputed Facts on Cause of Collapse Results in Denied Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Excess Must Defend After Primary Improperly Refuses to Do So

    August 13, 2014 —
    The excess insurer had a duty to defend after the primary carrier improperly refused its defense obligations. IMG Worldwide, Inc. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13703 (6th Cir. July 15, 2014). IMG was sued for over $300,000,000 for alleged fraud, conversion, civil theft and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act (FDUTPA). The lawsuit stemmed from a real estate development project. The plaintiffs had invested in the project and alleged that the developer had sold them undeveloped properties with the promise they would be developed. IMG was a consultant on the project and also licensed to the developer the use of the IMG name and logo in marketing materials. IMG had no contractual obligation to actually develop the property or finance the project. IMG sought coverage from its primary carrier, Great Divide, and from its excess carrier, Westchester. Both denied coverage and refused to defend. 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

    Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case Triggered by Complaint's Allegations

    August 20, 2014 —
    The subcontractor's insurer could not escape contributing to defense costs of its insured when coverage was possible based upon the underlying complaint's allegations. Seneca Ins. Co. v. James River Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97156 (D. Ore. July 17, 2014). The underlying action alleged construction defects in a 60-unit complex located in Seaside, Oregon. S.D. Deacon Corp. was the general contractor and contracted with the owners association to reconstruct portions of the building, including the curtain wall. Deacon subcontracted with Superwall Design, LLP for work on the curtain wall renovation. At some point not specified in the underlying complaint, the Association notified Deacon of construction defects in the curtain wall renovation. Deacon investigated and concluded that the alleged property damage was the result of inadequate usage of materials, violations of state and local building codes, and violations of relevant industry standards relating to the work performed by Superwall. Deacon contended that the problems were caused by Superwall's faulty workmanship. 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

    Bill Introduced to give Colorado Shortest Statute of Repose in U.S.

    January 21, 2015 —
    Yesterday, State Senator Ray Scott (R-Mesa County) introduced a bill to shorten Colorado’s already short statute of repose. If this bill passes, it will severely undermine the rights of Colorado homeowners. Colorado already has one of the shortest construction defect statutes of repose in the United States. If a homeowner does not discover a defect within six years of a house’s completion, the homeowner may forfeit all legal rights to seek repairs. Senator Ray’s bill would cut this time in half and could preclude homeowners from obtaining any relief three years after a home is built. No other state in America has such a severe limit on homeowner rights. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law Firm
    Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.wittlawfirm.net

    No Coverage for Home Damaged by Falling Boulders

    March 08, 2021 —
    The policy's earth movement exclusion barred coverage for the home damaged by large boulders rolling down from the hillside above. Sullivan v. Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am., 2021 U.S. App. LEZXIS 628 (10th Cir Jan. 11, 2021). Plaintiffs' home sustained extensive damage when two or three large builders rolled down a steep hillside and struck the home. The insurer, Nationwide, hired an engineering firm that determined the boulders were not influenced by meteorological conditions such as torrential rain or high winds. The report noted that rockfall hazards existed primarily due to an undercut sandstone outcrop, and evidenced by numerous rocks from rockfall events that scattered Plaintiffs' property. Based on the report, Nationwide denied coverage under the earth movement exclusion. The exclusion provided Nationwide did "not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by . . . Earth Movement" and regardless of "whether or not the loss event results in widespread damage or affects a substantial area." The policy further defined "earth movement" to include "landslide . . . or any other earth movement including earth sinking, risking or shifting." 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

    New York Considering Legislation That Would Create Statute of Repose For Construction

    April 05, 2021 —
    New York is considering legislation, which, if enacted, would create a statute of repose limiting the number of years after completion of a construction project that legal action may be asserted against a contractor. New York currently remains the only state without a statute of repose for construction. Earlier this year, however, the New York State Legislature introduced Bills S04127 and A01706 (the “Bill”) , which would impose a 10-year period of repose in which an injured party may bring suit against a design professional and/or a contractor for bodily injury or property damage resulting from a construction defect. Currently, contractors and design professionals have exposure to bodily injury and property damage claims resulting from construction defects for an unlimited number of years after completion of a project. If enacted, the Bill would limit the period of repose to 10 years after the project is completed, which is deemed to occur upon substantial completion or acceptance by the owner. An additional 1-year grace period is provided for an injured party to file suit where bodily injury or property damage occurs in the tenth year after completion. The Bill notably limits the applicability of the 10-year statute of repose to third-party actions and thereby preserves the existing 3-year and 6-year statutes of limitation applicable to actions asserted by an owner or client for professional malpractice and breach of contract, respectively. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    United States Supreme Court Backtracks on Recent Trajectory Away from Assertions of General Jurisdiction in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern

    August 01, 2023 —
    Washington, D.C. (June 28, 2023) – On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a sharply divided opinion that appears to backtrack on the Court’s steady trajectory away from assertions of general jurisdiction in recent years, e.g. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011), Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 2017, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017). Relying on a case from 1917, Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U. S. 93 (1917), Justice Gorsuch, writing on behalf of the plurality, (Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, Sotomayor, and Jackson) (Justice Alito concurring) found that Norfolk Southern “consented” to jurisdiction in Mallory via 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5301(a)(2)(i),(b) by registering to do business in Pennsylvania. This statute, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5301, specifically permits jurisdiction over a corporation “incorporat[ed] under or qualifi[ed]as a foreign corporation under the laws of this Commonwealth … for any cause of action that may asserted against him, whether or not arising from acts enumerated in this section.” In Pennsylvania Fire, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution in connection with a Missouri law that required an out-of-state insurance company desiring to transact any business in the state to file paperwork agreeing to (1) appoint a state official to serve as the company’s agent for service of process and (2) accept service on that official as valid in any suit. After more than a decade of complying with the law, Pennsylvania Fire was served with process and argued that the Missouri law violated due process. The Court unanimously found that there was “no doubt” that Pennsylvania Fire could be sued in Missouri because it had agreed to accept service of process in Missouri on any suit as a condition of doing business there. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Charles S. Anderson, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Anderson may be contacted at Charles.Anderson@lewisbrisbois.com

    Europe’s Satellites Could Help Catch the Next Climate Disaster

    February 15, 2021 —
    Spain began the new year battling Storm Filomena, a once-in-a-generation weather event that blanketed Madrid in snow and paralyzed the economy. Health workers were stranded, supermarkets shut, and the army was called in. At least four people died. “Now, consider a government or company that knew two weeks ago there was a risk that this would happen,” said Francisco Doblas-Reyes, a physicist at Barcelona’s Supercomputing Center. “Knowing the risk that a 1-in-20-year event was going to happen would have given more possibilities to prepare.” Doblas-Reyes and his team are working on complex models that they hope can better detect the next Filomena, a job that’s become increasingly important as climate change makes weather more unpredictable — and extreme. The data collected by European satellites is at the heart of the continent’s multibillion-euro Destination Earth program seeking to develop the world’s best digital simulation of Earth. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Tirone, Bloomberg

    Rhode Island Examines a Property Owner’s Intended Beneficiary Status and the Economic Loss Doctrine in the Context of a Construction Contract

    March 18, 2019 —
    In Hexagon Holdings Inc. v. Carlisle Syntec, Inc. No. 2017-175-Appeal, 2019 R.I. Lexis 14 (January 17, 2019), the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, discussing claims associated with allegedly defective construction, addressed issues involving intended beneficiaries to contracts and the application of the economic loss doctrine. The court held that, based on the evidence presented, the building owner, Hexagon Holdings, Inc. (Hexagon) was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the subcontract between the general contractor (A/Z Corporation) and the subcontractor, defendant McKenna Roofing and Construction, Inc. (McKenna). In addition, the court held that, in the context of this commercial construction contract, the economic loss doctrine applied and barred Hexagon’s negligence claims against McKenna. Approximately nine years after Hexagon entered into a contract with A/Z Corporation for the construction of a building, Hexagon filed suit against A/Z Corporation’s roofing installation subcontractor, McKenna, and the manufacturer of the roofing system. Hexagon alleged that the roof began to leak shortly after McKenna installed it. Notably, Hexagon did not sue A/Z Corporation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams
    Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com