BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windows
    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


    The Road to Rio 2016: Zika, Super Bacteria, and Construction Delays. Sounds Like Everything is Going as Planned

    Court Retained Jurisdiction to Enforce Settlement Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 Despite Dismissal of Complaint

    Contracts and Fraud Don’t Mix (Even for Lawyers!)

    The Best Laid Plans: Contingency in a Construction Contract

    NIBS Consultative Council Issues Moving Forward Report on Healthy Buildings

    Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

    COVID-19 Win for Policyholders! Court Approves "Direct Physical Loss" Argument

    Transportation Officials Make the Best of a Bumpy 2020

    What I Learned at My First NAWIC National Conference

    California Department of Corrections Gets Hit With the Prison Bid Protest Blues

    London's Walkie Talkie Tower Voted Britain's Worst New Building

    U.K. Construction Unexpectedly Strengthens for a Second Month

    Eighth Circuit Affirms Judgment for Bad Faith after Insured's Home Destroyed by Fire

    Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage

    Mind Over Matter: Court Finds Expert Opinion Based on NFPA 921 Reliable Despite Absence of Physical Testing

    ETF Bulls Bet Spring Will Thaw the U.S. Housing Market

    Uneven Code Enforcement Seen in Earthquake-Damaged Buildings in Turkey

    Construction and Contract Issues Blamed for Problems at Anchorage Port

    Tightest Credit Market in 16 Years Rejects Bernanke’s Bid

    The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Bank of America’s Countrywide Ordered to Pay $1.3 Billion

    Reminder: A Little Pain Now Can Save a Lot of Pain Later

    Putting 3D First, a Model Bridge Rises in Norway

    U.S. Construction Spending Rose in 2017 by Least in Six Years

    Nondelegable Duties

    Subsurface Water Exclusion Found Unambiguous

    Public Contract Code Section 1104 Does Not Apply to Claims of Implied Breach of Warranty of Correctness of Plans and Specifications

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (09/21/22) – 3D Printing, Sustainable Design, and the Housing Market Correction

    Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement

    Are We Headed for a Work Shortage?

    This Times Square Makeover Is Not a Tourist Attraction

    Don’t Forget to Mediate the Small Stuff

    Triable Issue of Fact Exists as to Insurer’s Obligation to Provide Coverage Under Occurrence Policy

    Statutes of Limitations May be the Colorado Contractors’ Friend

    No Duty to Indemnify Where No Duty to Defend

    Revisiting Statutory Offers to Compromise

    Federal Judge Vacates CDC Eviction Moratorium Nationwide

    Don’t Believe Everything You Hear: Liability of Asbestos Pipe Manufacturer Upheld Despite Exculpatory Testimony of Plaintiff

    Judge Dismisses Suit to Block Construction of Obama Center

    Tax Increase Pumps $52 Billion Into California Construction

    Construction Client Advisory: The Power of the Bonded Stop Notice Extends to Expended Construction Funds

    Feds Used Wire to Crack Las Vegas HOA Scam

    ASCE Statement on Congress Passage of National Debt Limit Suspension

    When a Construction Lender Steps into the Shoes of the Developer, the Door is Open for Claims by the General Contractor

    Maybe California Actually Does Have Enough Water

    Survey: Workers Lack Awareness of Potentially Hazardous Nanomaterials

    Condominium Association Responsibility to Resolve Construction Defect Claims

    Power to the Office Worker

    Reversing Itself, West Virginia Supreme Court Holds Construction Defects Are Covered

    Industry Practices Questioned After Girder Fractures at Salesforce Transit Center
    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. Drawing 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

    Vertical vs. Horizontal Exhaustion – California Supreme Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Policyholders

    May 11, 2020 —
    For years, when faced with damage or injury spanning several policy periods, excess general liability insurers have argued that all potentially applicable underlying policies must be exhausted before the excess drops down to provide coverage (“horizontal exhaustion”). Insureds, on the other hand, insist that they are entitled to immediately access an excess policy for any given policy year, if that year’s underlying policy has exhausted (“vertical exhaustion”). Vertical exhaustion not only enables insureds to directly tap into the excess insurance for which they paid substantial premiums, but also enables the insured to moderate risk given that different lower level policies might (1) be needed for other claims, (2) have larger self-insured retentions, or (3) have other less favorable coverage provisions. Allowing an insured to proceed via vertical exhaustion would also eliminate the heavy administrative and logistical burden that could result from having to pursue and exhaust all underlying coverage on multi-year claims. In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court has come down in favor of policyholders and vertical exhaustion. The Montrose case involved contamination that allegedly occurred between 1947 and 1982 and different liability insurance towers (comprised of primary and excess layers) for each year. The insured, Montrose, maintained a tower of insurance coverage, year by year, and faced claims asserting damage that spanned several decades. Montrose sought coverage from excess insurers under a vertical exhaustion approach. Not surprisingly, Montrose’s excess insurers insisted that horizontal exclusion was required and that Montrose was required to exhausted all other policies with lower attachment points in every single involved policy period. The California Supreme Court ruled in Montrose’s favor, holding that the insured may insist upon full coverage from an excess insurer once the layer directly below it has exhausted. The Court reasoned that the burden of spreading the loss among insurers is one that is appropriately borne by insurers, not insureds. Reprinted courtesy of Alan H. Packer, Newmeyer Dillion and James S. Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Packer may be contacted at alan.packer@ndlf.com Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Coverage Action Arising out of a Claim for Personal Injury

    December 22, 2019 —
    On August 16, 2019, Traub Lieberman partner obtained summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action involving a claim for coverage for a personal injury action involving injuries suffered on a construction site. The plaintiff in the underlying action was performing excavation in a basement of a building in Manhattan so the owner could install a pool. During the course of the excavation plaintiff fell 13 feet from a plank, into the excavated pit, suffering serious injuries. Traub Lieberman’s client issued a CGL policy to the building owner and the insured sought coverage for the suit under that policy. The insurer denied coverage based on an endorsement to the policy that stated the insured could only contract directly with a specified general contractor. The plaintiff was an employee of a subcontractor and the insurer believed the insured had contracted directly with that unapproved subcontractor. The insured denied it had done, contending the subcontractor had been hired by the general contractor identified in the endorsement. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan R. Harwood, Traub Lieberman Mr. Harwood may be contacted at jharwood@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Following Pennsylvania Trend, Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Construction Defect

    December 08, 2016 —
    Bound by Pennsylvania law, the federal district court found there was no coverage for defects in the installation of a roof. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Kim's Asia Constr., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 5, 2016). Kim's Asia Construction contracted to remove and dispose of Powerline Imports, Inc.'s roof, and then install a new roof. After completion of the project, Powerline sued, alleging that Kim's Asia's negligent construction of the roof caused the roof to leak, even in minor rain storms. Kim's Asia made additional repairs, but the leaks continued. Powerline had to hire a new contractor to remove and dispose of the roof and install another roof. Powerline then sued Kim's Asia. 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

    9th Circuit Plumbs Through the Federal and State False Claims Acts

    January 16, 2024 —
    You may have heard of the False Claims Act and know that it penalizes companies and individuals in contract with the government who present false claims. The federal False Claims Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 to penalize profiteers during the Civil War who were selling the Union Army moth eaten blankets, boxes of sawdust instead of guns, and sometimes re-selling the Army calvary horses several times over. Since then, many states, including California, as well as municipalities, have enacted their own false claim statutes. As currently written, the federal False Claims Act provides for statutory penalties against any person who:
    1. “[K]nowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval”;
    2. “[K]nowingly makes, uses or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim”;
    3. “[H]as possession, custody, or control of property or money used, or to be used, by the Government an knowingly delivers, or causes to be delivered, less than all of that money or property”;
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    California Supreme Court Holds that Requirement of Prejudice for Late Notice Defense is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State for Choice of Law Analysis

    November 04, 2019 —
    California’s highest court held yesterday in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., that the state’s insurance notice-prejudice rule is a “fundamental public policy” for the purpose of choice of law analyses. This unanimous ruling, issued in response to certified questions from the Ninth Circuit, confirms and emphasizes California’s common law rule that policyholders who provide “late notice” may proceed with their insurance claim, absent a showing by the insurer of substantial prejudice. The California Supreme Court also extended the prejudice requirement, holding that a first-party insurer must show that it was prejudiced before denying coverage under a policy’s “consent provision,” which typically provides that the policyholder must obtain the insurer’s “consent” before incurring costs and expenses. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys Lorelie S. Masters, Michael S. Levine and Michelle M. Spatz Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas Supreme Court to Review Eight-Corners Duty-to-Defend Rule

    April 05, 2021 —
    The Texas Supreme Court has accepted certified questions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to clarify Texas’ eight-corners rule for determining the existence of a duty to defend. In Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., No. 19-51012, 2021 WL 955155 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2021), certified question accepted (Mar. 19, 2021), the Fifth Circuit asked the Texas Supreme Court to provide guidance on Texas insurance law. In Bitco, the insured was sued for negligently drilling an irrigation well. The insured allegedly got a drilling bit stuck in a bore hole, refused to fix the issue, and eventually abandoned the well. The policy did not cover continuing property damage known to the insured before the policy incepted. The policy period ran from Oct. 6, 2015 to Oct. 6, 2016, and the parties stipulated the drill bit became stuck in November 2014. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears
    Mr. De Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com

    Pensacola Bridge Repair Plan Grows as Inspectors Uncover More Damage

    September 28, 2020 —
    With a still-growing list of repairs needed to restore the barge-damaged Pensacola Bay Bridge, the Florida Dept. of Transportation has yet to determine a timeline for completing repairs. But assessments by the agency’s inspectors indicate that impacts from several Skanska-owned construction barges that unmoored during Hurricane Sally not only resulted in five irreparable spans, as previously reported, but at least two more that will require partial replacement. Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    July 19, 2011 —

    Judge Marilyn Kelly of the Michigan Supreme Court has remanded the case of Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Constr. Inc. (Mich., 2011) to the Court of Appeals, after determining that the court had improperly applied the statute of repose. She reversed their judgment, pending a new trial.

    Ahrens Construction was a subcontractor, hired by Miller-Davis to build and install a natatorium room at a YMCA camp in Kalamazoo, Michigan. After its installation, the YMCA discovered a severe condensation problem, causing moisture to “rain” from the roof. The architect, testifying for Miller-Davis, alleged that the problems were due to improper installation by Ahrens. Ahrens claimed that the condensation problem was due to a design error.

    When the roof was removed and reconstructed, the moisture problem ended. Ahrens argued that the alleged defects were caused by the removal. Further, in trial Ahrens raised the issue of the statute of repose. The court found in favor of Miller-Davis and did not address the statute of repose.

    The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, determining that the statute of repose had barred the suit. This rendered the other issues moot.

    The Michigan Supreme concluded that the issue at hand was “a suit for breach of contract,” and that the Michigan statute of repose is limited to tort actions. They remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to address the issues that had been mooted by the application of the statute of repose.

    Read the court’s decision…

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