BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling 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


    Superintendent’s On-Site Supervision Compensable as Labor Under Miller Act

    Construction Insurance Costs for New York Schools is Going Up

    Texas Federal Court Delivers Another Big Win for Policyholders on CGL Coverage for Construction-Defect Claims and “Rip-and-Tear” Damages

    South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship

    Missouri Protects Subrogation Rights

    California Superior Court Overrules Insurer's Demurrer on COVID-19 Claim

    Quick Note: Steps to Protect and Avoid the “Misappropriation” of a “Trade Secret”

    Traub Lieberman Chair Emeritus Awarded the 2022 Vince Donohue Award by the International Association of Claim Professionals

    Women Make Their Mark on Construction Leadership

    Congratulations 2024 DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Owner’s Obligation Giving Notice to Cure to Contractor and Analyzing Repair Protocol

    Sales of Existing U.S. Homes Unexpectedly Fell in January

    Loan Snarl Punishes Spain Builder Backed by Soros, Gates

    County Elects Not to Sue Over Construction Defect Claims

    Just Because I May Be An “Expert” Does Not Mean I Am Giving Expert Testimony

    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

    Sanctions Issued for Frivolous Hurricane Sandy Complaint Filed Against Insurer

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Denies Review of Pro-Policy Decision

    A Termination for Convenience Is Not a Termination for Default

    Milhouse Engineering and Construction, Inc. Named 2022 A/E/C Building a Better World Award Winner

    Hurricane Handbook: A Policyholder's Guide to Handling Claims during Hurricane Season

    Baltimore Bridge Collapse Occurred After Ship Lost Power Multiple Times

    Architects and Engineers Added to Harmon Towers Lawsuit

    Contractor Sues Yelp Reviewer for Defamation

    Developer's Novel Virus-killing Air Filter Ups Standard for Indoor Air Quality

    The NAR asks FAA to Amend their Drone Rules for Real Estate Use

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases

    Design & Construction Case Expands Florida’s Slavin Doctrine

    EO or Uh-Oh: Biden’s Executive Order Requiring Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects

    Compliance with Building Code Included in Property Damage

    What Buyers Want in a Green Home—and What They Don’t

    Plaintiffs Not Barred from Proving Causation in Slip and Fall Case, Even With No Witnesses and No Memory of Fall Itself

    First Look at Long List of AEC Firms Receiving PPP Loans

    Colorado Court of Appeals Decides the Triple Crown Case

    Supreme Court of Kentucky Holds Plaintiff Can Recover for Stigma Damages in Addition to Repair Costs Resulting From Property Damage

    A Court-Side Seat: Citizen Suits, “Facility” Management and Some Nuance for Your Hazard Ranking

    Georgia Local Government Drainage Liability: Nuisance and Trespass

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation: A Redux

    Trial Court Abuses Discretion in Appointing Unqualified Umpire for Appraisal

    Ben L. Aderholt Joins Coats Rose Construction Litigation Group

    GSA Releases Updated Standards to Accelerate Federal Buildings Toward Zero Emissions

    Florida Appellate Court Holds Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applicable Irrespective of Contractor Licensure

    Obama Asks for $302 Billion to Fix Bridges and Potholes

    Florida “get to” costs do not constitute damages because of “property damage”

    Crime Policy Insurance Quotes Falsely Represented the Scope of its Coverage

    Amazon Feels the Heat From Hoverboard Fire Claims

    American Council of Engineering Companies of California Selects New Director

    Elizabeth Lofts Condo Owners Settle with Plumbing Supplier

    Insurer Could Not Rely on Extrinsic Evidence to Circumvent Its Duty to Defend

    Jury Awards Aluminum Company 35 Million in Time Element Losses
    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. Leveraging 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

    Georgia Supreme Court Rules Construction Defects Can Constitute an Occurrence in CGL Policies

    April 05, 2011 —

    Recently, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the decision in American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company v Hathaway Development Company, Inc. stating that because Whisnant’s faulty workmanship caused damage to the surrounding properties, the construction defects constituted “occurrences” under the Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy. Unlike the South Carolina Supreme court ruling in the case of Crossman Communities v Harleysville Mutual, the Georgia Supreme Court stated that an accident can happen intentionally if the effect is not the intended result.

    Interestingly, the only dissenting judge, J. Melton, disagreed with his colleagues on the basis that “although the term ‘accident’ is not specifically defined in the policy, it is axiomatic that an ‘accident’ cannot result from ‘intentional’ behavior.” It is clear that what constitutes an occurrence in CGL policies is still being hotly debated.

    Read the full story...

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

    Court Concludes That COVID-19 Losses Can Qualify as “Direct Physical Loss”

    September 28, 2020 —
    In a victory for policyholders, a federal district court found that COVID-19 can cause physical loss under business-interruption policies. In Studio 417, Inc., et al. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Co., No. 20-cv-03127-SRB (W.D. Mo. Aug. 12, 2020), the court rejected the argument often advanced by insurers that “all-risks” property insurance policies require a physical, structural alteration to trigger coverage. This decision shows that, with correct application of policy-interpretation principles and strategic use of pleading and evidence, policyholders can defeat the insurance industry’s “party line” arguments that business-interruption insurance somehow cannot apply to pay for the unprecedented losses businesses are experiencing from COVID-19, public-safety orders, loss of use of business assets, and other governmental edicts. The policyholders in Studio 417 operate hair salons and restaurants asserting claims for business interruption. In suing to enforce their coverage, the policyholders allege that, over the last several months, it is likely that customers, employees, and/or other visitors to the insured properties were infected with COVID-19 and thereby infected the insured properties with the virus. Their complaint asserts that the presence of COVID-19 “renders physical property in their vicinity unsafe and unusable.” Unlike some other complaints seeking to enforce such coverage, it also alleges that the presence of COVID-19 and government “Closure Orders” “caused a direct physical loss or direct physical damage” to their premises “by denying use of and damaging the covered property, and by causing a necessary suspension of operations during a period of restoration.” Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Jorge R. Aviles, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Aviles may be contacted at javiles@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Rejects Claim on Dolphin Towers

    July 22, 2011 —

    A year after residents were forced to leave Dolphin Towers in Sarasota, Florida because of concrete problems, some residents are defaulting on their obligations, abandoning their units. In June, the building’s insurer, Great American, rejected a claim, arguing that the building’s problems were due to latent defects, not covered under the policy. Repair estimates, previously put at $8.2 million, have now risen to $11.5 million. If homeowners cover this cost, it would require an assessment of about $100,000 for each unit.

    About thirty owners are in arrears on dues and fees. Charlotte Ryan, the president of the Dolphin Tower board, wrote to owners, that “the board will have no choice but to lien your property and pursue foreclosure if you do nothing to bring your delinquencies up to date.” However, as homeowners default, the funding for repairs is imperiled. The board has already spent more than $500,000 on shoring up the building and hiring consultants. Their lawyers, on the other hand, are working on a contingency basis.

    Read the full story…

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

    First Circuit Rules Excess Insurer Must Provide Coverage for Fuel Spill

    January 18, 2021 —
    The First Circuit recently held that a “Special Hazard and Fluids Limitation Endorsement” was ambiguous and therefore there was excess coverage for a fuel spill that occurred after a tanker-truck overturned. In Performance Trans. Inc. v. General Star Indem. Co., the First Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of General Star Indemnity Company. The District Court held that the excess policy General Star issued to Performance Trans. Inc. precluded coverage for a spill that resulted in the leaking of thousands of gallons of fuel. The District Court relied on the existence of a total pollution exclusion to bar coverage and held that the policy’s Special Hazards and Fluids Limitation Endorsement could not create an ambiguity that would afford coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at sahmad@HuntonAK.com Ms. Perez may be contacted at pereza@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Tidal Lagoon Plans Marine Project to Power Every Home in Wales

    March 05, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- Tidal Lagoon Power Ltd., a U.K. marine-energy developer, is planning its second project, a 2.8-gigawatt power plant that will use the tides to generate enough electricity for every home in Wales. The company submitted an environmental impact assessment for the marine power plant that would use 90 turbines installed between Cardiff and Newport, according to an e-mailed statement Monday. The closely held company expects to submit a full planning application in 2017 and the project may go into operation in 2022. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Louise Downing, Bloomberg
    Ms. Downing may be contacted at ldowning4@bloomberg.net

    Top Five Legal Mistakes in Construction

    April 04, 2022 —
    Many contractors repeatedly make the same mistakes in negotiating contracts. Here are the most common mistakes contractors make—and how they can be avoided. 1. Not Being Careful With Force Majeure Clauses To protect themselves from liability in the event of unforeseen circumstances like fires, floods, wars, unusual delays in deliveries, strikes, pandemics or acts of God, contractors should ensure their contracts contain robust force majeure provisions. These provisions state that in the event of any extenuating circumstances outside of its control, the contractor is not liable for any damages that result from a delay to the project completion date and is entitled to a time extension. This clause has been critical in addressing COVID-19-related disruptions and the current material shortages. Contractors should be wary, however, of “no damage-for-delay” language, which often appears in conjunction with these clauses. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan A. Cass, Nicholas F. Morello and John A. Greenhall, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Cass may be contacted at jcass@cohenseglias.com Mr. Greenhall may be contacted at jgreenhall@cohenseglias.com Mr. Morello may be contacted at nmorello@cohenseglias.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A License to Sue: Appellate Court Upholds Condition of Statute that a Contracting Party Must Hold a Valid Contractor’s License to Pursue Action for Recovery of Payment for Contracting Services

    June 21, 2017 —
    California Business & Professions Code section 7031(a) requires a party to have contractor’s license in order to maintain an action for compensation for services performed for which a contractor’s license is needed. In Phoenix Mechanical Pipeline, Inc. v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., No. B269186 (2017 WL 2544856) (Cal. Ct. App. June 13, 2017), the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District considered the scope of this statute in denying, in part, Phoenix Mechanical Pipeline, Inc.’s (“Phoenix Pipeline”) appeal of a trial court ruling granting Space Exploration Technologies Corporation’s (“SpaceX”) demurrer to Phoenix Pipeline’s second amended complaint, without leave to amend. Phoenix Pipeline filed the underlying lawsuit for, among other claims, breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing arising from an agreement with SpaceX for Phoenix Pipeline to perform various plumbing, concrete removal and electrical services. Phoenix Pipeline alleged SpaceX paid for such services from 2010 to October 2013, but failed to pay Phoenix for services performed from October 2013 to August 2014, totaling just over $1,000,000. According to Phoenix Pipeline, this work was performed pursuant to a series of invoices, which constituted individual agreements between SpaceX and Phoenix Pipeline. Reprinted courtesy of Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction in Indian Country – What You Need To Know About Sovereign Immunity

    July 22, 2019 —
    There are many legal issues to consider when bidding on and building projects in American Indian Country. Which labor and employment laws apply? Are there contracting or hiring preferences that apply? Do the Prompt Pay Act and other state laws apply? Can I bring a lawsuit to enforce the contract and, if so, where would I file suit? This article addresses the final question, which is often the most important question when contracting with a tribal entity. Many of the construction projects in American Indian Country are with tribes or entities wholly owned or by a tribe, such as housing authorities, casinos, hospitals, schools or other economic enterprises. Like the state and federal government, tribes (and their tribally—owned enterprises) enjoy sovereign immunity from any lawsuit, meaning they cannot be sued unless the tribe expressly agrees to waive its sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity poses a unique issue for contractors that does not typically arise in other projects, but it need not be a deterrent to doing business with tribes. It is usually in the best interest of both the contractor and tribe to negotiate an acceptable waiver of sovereign immunity. Absent such a waiver, the tribe or tribal entity cannot be sued and the resulting forfeiture of remedies can be devastating for the contractor. To waive sovereign immunity, the tribe must make it clear in the contract that it can be sued in a specific jurisdiction. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 509 (1991). It does not matter whether the tribe is operating on or off its lands—if there is no express contractual waiver of sovereign immunity, a contractor will have no recourse in the event of non-payment or other breach of contract. See Kiowa tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Edward J. Hermes, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Hermes may be contacted at ehermes@swlaw.com