BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture 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


    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Suffolk Stands Down After Consecutive Serious Boston Site Injuries

    Commercial Construction Heating Up

    Surety Trends to Keep an Eye on in the Construction Industry

    Spencer Mayer Receives Miami-Dade Bar Association's '40 Under 40' Award

    Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

    Taylor Morrison Home Corp’ New San Jose Development

    Insurer's Attempt to Limit Additional Insured Status Fails

    Contractors Prepare for a Strong 2021 Despite Unpredictability

    In Real Life the Bad Guy Sometimes Gets Away: Adding Judgment Debtors to a Judgment

    Creeping Incrementalism in Downstream Insurance: Carriers are Stretching Standard CGL Concepts to Untenable Limits

    No Coverage for Tenant's Breach of Contract Claims

    As Florence Eyes East Coast, Are You Looking At Your Insurance?

    Protect Projects From Higher Repair Costs and Property Damage

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

    Biden's Next 100 Days: Major Impacts Expected for the Construction Industry

    Hunton’s Geoffrey Fehling Confirmed to DC Bar Foundation’s Young Lawyers Network Leadership Council

    Second Circuit Court Differentiates the Standard for Determining Evident Partiality for a Neutral Arbitrator and a Party-Appointed Arbitrator

    Touchdown! – The Construction Industry’s Winning Audible to the COVID Blitz

    Insurers' Motion to Determine Lack of Occurrence Fails

    House Passes Bill to Delay EPA Ozone Rule

    Feds OK $9B Houston Highway Project After Two-Year Pause

    Supreme Court Addresses Newly Amended Statute of Repose for Construction Claims

    The Construction Industry's Health Kick

    California Contractors: New CSLB Procedure Requires Non-California Corporations to Associate All Officers with Their Contractor’s License

    General Partner Is Not Additional Insured For Construction Defect Claim

    Seattle’s Newest Residential Developer

    Mortgage Bonds Stare Down End of Fed Easing as Gains Persist

    Construction Defects #10 On DBJ’s Top News Stories of 2015

    Update Your California Release Provisions to Include Amended Section 1542 Language

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Confident about Construction Defect Bill

    The Independent Tort Doctrine (And Its Importance)

    David M. McLain to Speak at the CLM Claims College - School of Construction - Scholarships Available

    Greystone on Remand Denies Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment To Bar Coverage For Construction Defects

    New Notary Language For Mechanics Lien Releases and Stop Payment Notice Releases

    Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Duty to Defend Group Builders Case

    A Landlord’s Guide to the Center for Disease Control’s Eviction Moratorium

    Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

    Five-Year Statute of Limitations on Performance-Type Surety Bonds

    Florida’s Citizens Property Insurance May Be Immune From Bad Faith, But Is Not Immune From Consequential Damages

    Angela Cooner Appointed Vice-Chair of Arizona’s Inaugural Board of Legal Specialization Construction Defect Law Advisory Commission

    Court Denies Insured's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Seeking to Compel Appraisal

    Buyer Alleges Condo Full of Mold and Mice

    Lorelie S. Masters Nominated for Best in Insurance & Reinsurance for the Women in Business Law Awards 2021

    Job Growth Seen as Good News for North Carolina Housing Market

    Zero-Net Energy Homes Costly Everywhere but at the Electric Meter

    Clearly Determining in Contract Who Determines Arbitrability of Dispute

    If I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable?

    Natural Disasters’ Impact on Construction in the United States

    Defense Victory in Breach of Fiduciary Action
    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

    Colorado Temporarily Requires Employers to Provide Sick Leave While Awaiting COVID-19 Testing

    April 06, 2020 —
    On March 11, 2020, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) issued emergency rules, referred to as Colorado Health Emergency Leave with Pay (Colorado HELP) Rules, requiring employers in certain industries to provide four days of paid sick leave to employees with flu-like symptoms while awaiting test results for COVID-19, or to anyone who is under instructions from a healthcare provider to quarantine or isolate due to a risk of having COVID-19. These rules take effect immediately for 30 days, or longer if the state of emergency declared by Colorado Governor Polis continues. Which industries are covered by the Colorado HELP Rules?
    • Leisure and hospitality;
    • Food services;
    • Child care;
    • Education (including transportation, food service, and related work at educational establishments);
    • Home health (if working with elderly, disabled, ill, or otherwise high-risk individuals)
    • Nursing homes; and
    • Community living facilities; and
    • Retail establishments that sell groceries (added March 26).
    How much paid sick leave must be provided? Employers are required to provide up to four days of paid sick leave to employees with flu-like symptoms who are being tested for COVID-19. If the employee tests negative, the leave ends. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shawna Ruetz, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Ruetz may be contacted at Shawna.Ruetz@lewisbrisbois.com

    No Additional Insured Coverage Under Umbrella Policy

    March 12, 2014 —
    The additional insured was not covered under a property policy for an injury occurring after work was completed. Lewark v. Davis Door Servs., 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 341 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2014). Public Storage, Inc. hired Davis Door Service Inc. to perform work at its facilities. The master agreement required Davis Door to maintain a CGL policy that insured Public Storage "during the entire progress of the work." Davis Door secured a CGL policy with American Economy. It also took out an umbrella liability policy with American States. After Davis Door completed work on a door, Terrie Lewark injury her back opening the door. She sued Public Storage and Davis Door. Lewar and Public Storage settled. Public Storage assigned to Lewark its rights under the umbrella policy with American States. Lewark then sued Davis Door and American States. The trial court found that Public Storage was not an additional insured under the American States umbrella policy. 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

    Houston Office Secures Favorable Verdict in Trespass and Nuisance Case Involving Subcontractor’s Accidental Installation of Storm Sewer Pipe on Plaintiff’s Property

    June 12, 2023 —
    Houston, Texas (May 26, 2023) - Houston Partners Joelle Nelson and Matt Begley secured a defense verdict on behalf of a gasoline services company following a four-day trial in the 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas. In this case, Lewis Brisbois represented a client who hired a contractor to install a storm sewer line to mitigate flood risks to the client’s property. The contractor, however, deviated from the engineering plans and installed the storm sewer line on a neighboring property owned by the plaintiff. The storm sewer line then remained on the plaintiff’s property for five years while the parties attempted to negotiate potential solutions to the situation. The plaintiff refused multiple reasonable settlement attempts and ultimately sued the client and the contractor for continuous trespass and private nuisance. The contractor’s carrier denied coverage, making the client the target defendant. The matter proceeded to trial. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage

    July 30, 2019 —
    In McMillin Homes Construction v. Natl. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (No. D074219, filed 6/5/19) a California appeals court held that a “care, custody or control” exclusion did not bar coverage for defense of a general contractor as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s policy, because the exclusion requires exclusive control, but the facts and allegations posed a possibility of shared control with the subcontractor. McMillin was the general contractor on a housing project and was added as an additional insured to the roofing subcontractor’s policy pursuant to the construction subcontract. The homeowners sued, including allegations of water intrusion from roof defects. McMillin tendered to the roofing subcontractor’s insurer, which denied a defense based on the CGL exclusion for damage to property within McMillin’s care, custody or control. In the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, McMillin argued that the exclusion required complete or exclusive care, custody or control by the insured claiming coverage, which was not the case for McMillin. The insurer argued that the exclusion said nothing about complete or exclusive care, custody or control. Further, the intent to exclude coverage for damage to any and all property in McMillin’s care, custody or control, to whatever degree, was demonstrated by the fact that the additional insured endorsement in question was not an ISO CG2010 form, but a CG2009 form, which expressly adds a care, custody or control exclusion to the additional insured coverage not found in the CG2010 form. The argument was that the CG2009 form evidences an intent to conclusively eliminate coverage for property in the additional insured’s care, custody or control. In addition, the insurer argued that this result was also reinforced by its inclusion of an ISO CG2139 endorsement in the roofer’s policy, which eliminated that part of the “insured contract” language of the CGL form, defining an “insured contract” as “[t]hat part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business . . . under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to a third person or organization.” The insurer’s argument was that by having eliminated coverage for contractual indemnity or hold harmless agreements, it had “closed the loop” of eliminating additional insured coverage for construction defect claims. 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

    Is Performance Bond Liable for Delay Damages?

    October 20, 2016 —
    There is an argument that a performance bond is not liable for delay damages UNLESS the bond specifically allows for the recovery of such damages. Keep this in mind when requiring a performance bond so that the bond covers the associated risks (and damages) you contemplate when requiring the bond. This argument is supported by the Florida Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in American Home Assur. Co. v. Larkin General Hosp., Ltd., 593 So.2d 195, 198 (Fla. 1992):
    The language in the performance bond, construed together with the purpose of the bond, clearly explains that the performance bond merely guaranteed the completion of the construction contract and nothing more. Upon default, the terms of the performance bond required American [performance bond surety] to step in and either complete construction or pay Larkin [obligee] the reasonable costs of completion. Because the terms of the performance bond control the liability of the surety, American’s liability will not be extended beyond the terms of the performance bond. Therefore, American cannot be held liable for delay damages.
    However, the Eleventh Circuit in National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Fortune Const. Co., 320 F.3d 1260(11th Cir. 2003), also analyzing an issue relating to the recoverability of delay-type damages against a performance bond, did not narrowly interpret the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Larkin General Hospital. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

    Orchestrating Bias: Arbitrator’s Undisclosed Membership in Philharmonic Group with Pauly Shore’s Attorney Not Grounds to Reverse Award in Real Estate Dispute

    June 21, 2017 —
    The California court of appeal recently issued an unpublished decision in Knispel v. Shore, 2017 WL 2492535, affirming a judgment confirming an arbitration award in a real estate dispute involving Pauly Shore. The court of appeal held that the arbitrator’s failure to disclose her membership in the Los Angeles Lawyers Philharmonic Group with the attorney representing Pauly was not grounds to overturn the judgment. The underlying arbitration involved a dispute between Michael Scott Shore, on the one hand, and his brother, Pauly, among others, on the other hand, regarding certain residential property located on Sunset Boulevard near The Comedy Store in West Hollywood (owned and operated by their mother, Mitzi Shore). The parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute before Judge Aviva K. Bobb (Ret.) of the Alternative Resolution Center. Judge Bobb issued an award in favor of Pauly, and he petitioned the trial court to affirm the award. Michael opposed, contending the arbitrator failed to disclose that she and Pauly’s attorney had both been members of the Lawyers Philharmonic, for which they had been practicing and performing together since November 2010. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lyndsey Torp, Snell & Wilmer
    Ms. Torp may be contacted at ltorp@swlaw.com

    No Duty to Defend under Homeowner's Policy Where No Occurrence, No Property Damage

    October 10, 2022 —
    The federal district court for the district of Hawaii granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment determining there was not duty to defend and no duty to indemnify the insured under a homeowner's policy. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rosfeld, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139123 (D. Haw. Aug. 4, 2022). The insured homeowners were sued in the underlying case for alleged failure to disclose poor flooding and plumbing issues during a December 2016 sale of the residence on Kauai. The disclosure statement purportedly made false representations and omitted material facts regarding various issues with the residence. The disclosure statement noted no sewage, drainage, water-related, or grading problems on the property, no damage to structures from flooding or leaks, no defects in the foundations or slabs, and no defects in the interior walls, baseboards or trim despite the insureds having experienced such issues during their ownership. The underlying complaint further alleged that the property had a history of drainage problems dating to 2006 and 2007, which the insureds knew about, or should have known about, when completing the disclosure statement. The insureds made a claim with Allstate in 2014 under their flood and homeowners policies for flooding or seepage into the basement of the house. 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

    Federal Interpleader Dealing with Competing Claims over Undisputed Payable to Subcontractor

    September 28, 2017 —
    What do you do if you are holding undisputed money owed to a subcontractor? Well, you make an effort to pay it or tender it! Right? I am never a fan of a client holding undisputed sums without a legitimate contractual basis. There are circumstances, however, where the effort to pay an undisputed payable is not so easy. In fact, it is challenging, as in the below case example where the subcontractor filed for an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors (referred to as an “ABC”). An ABC, in a nutshell, allows an insolvent entity to file an insolvency action in state court governed by state law and choose its assignee (versus a federal bankruptcy action governed by federal law where a trustee is appointed). One major difference is that there is no automatic stay in an ABC as there is in a federal bankruptcy action. Thus, the insolvent entity can still be sued, but, while that entity is in an ABC, there are many creditors that will not be able to enforce a judgment. (See Florida Statute Ch. 727). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com