BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut slope failure 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


    Guilty Pleas Draw Renewed Interest In Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws

    Repairs Commencing on Defect-Ridden House from Failed State Supreme Court Case

    Traub Lieberman Recognized in 2022 U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms”

    Notice of Claim Sufficient to Invoke Coverage

    Subcontractor Allowed to Sue Designer for Negligence: California Courts Chip Away at the Economic Loss Doctrine (Independent Duty Rule)

    Despite Feds' Raised Bar, 2.8B Massachusetts Offshore Wind Project Presses On

    New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal in the Nation

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Secured by Lewis Brisbois in Coverage Dispute Involving San Francisco 49ers’ Levi Stadium

    Balfour in Talks With Carillion About $5 Billion Merger

    SB800 Not the Only Remedy for Construction Defects

    A Year Later, Homeowners Still Repairing Damage from Sandy

    Affordable Housing, Military Contracts and Mars: 3D Printing Construction Potential Builds

    Useful Life: A Valuable Theory for Reducing Damages

    Phoenix Flood Victims Can’t Catch a Break as Storm Nears

    Florida extends the Distressed Condominium Relief Act

    Angelo Mozilo Speaks: No Regrets at Countrywide

    California Contractors – You Should Know That Section 7141.5 May Be Your Golden Ticket

    Appeals Court Finds Manuscript Additional Insured Endorsements Ambiguous Regarding Completed Operations Coverage for Additional Insured

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 37 White And Williams Lawyers

    Meet Your Future Team Members: AI Agents

    Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben Obtains Federal Second Circuit Affirmance of Summary Judgment in Insurer’s Favor

    Can Your Industry Benefit From Metaverse Technology?

    New Megablimp to Deliver to Remote Alaskan Construction Sites

    McDermott International and BP Team Arbitrate $535M LNG Site Dispute

    Florida Extends Filing Time for Claims Subject to the Statute of Repose

    Eminent Domain Bomb Threats Made on $775M Alabama Highway Project

    Renee Mortimer Recognized as "Defense Lawyer of the Year" by DTCI

    Insurer's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Construction Defect Claim Rejected

    Florida Duty to Defend a Chapter 558 Right to Repair Notice

    Extreme Rainfall Is Becoming More Frequent and Deadly

    Architect Sues School District

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

    Hydrogen Powers Its Way from Proof of Concept to Reality in Real Estate

    NY Supreme Court Rules City Not Liable for Defective Sidewalk

    Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned

    Wisconsin High Court Rejects Insurer’s Misuse of “Other Insurance” Provision

    New-Home Sales in U.S. Unexpectedly Fall to Four-Month Low

    Building Permits Hit Five-Year High

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

    Greg Dillion & Newmeyer Dillion Named 2019 Good Scout Award Recipient

    Resulting Loss From Faulty Workmanship Covered

    First Trump Agenda Nuggets Hit Construction

    Heavy Rains Cause Flooding, Mudslides in Japan

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claim

    Las Vegas, Back From the Bust, Revives Dead Projects

    Architect Responds to Defect Lawsuit over Defects at Texas Courthouse

    Dave McLain included in the 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America

    Reminder: The Devil is in the Mechanic’s Lien Details

    New York Appellate Court Restores Insurer’s Right to Seek Pro Rata Allocation of Settlements Between Insured and Uninsured Periods
    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

    Designing a Fair Standard of Care in Design Agreements

    February 21, 2022 —
    One of the concerns faced by construction companies is now design liability. Design liability concerns are not limited to just design-build projects. It is a hot-button issue for builders because the line between an architect’s responsibility to create sufficient design documents and a builder’s responsibility to execute the means, methods, and techniques is increasingly blurry. Problems arise when owners, design professionals, and builders point fingers, rather than truly collaborate, and communicate. While construction technologies used to assemble complex systems within buildings are increasingly sophisticated, such sophistication is unfortunately not matched with increased information sharing and effective communication. Another reason for growing design liability is unclear and inadequate specifications. Too often projects rush as well as shortchange design budgets. And some projects use hybrid prescriptive and performance specifications. This hybrid approach often confuses and obfuscates rather than clarifies design requirements. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of ConsensusDocs

    Construction Professionals Could Face More Liability Exposure Following California Appellate Ruling

    December 17, 2024 —
    San Diego/San Francisco, Calif. - The California Court of Appeal recently reversed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a geotechnical engineering firm that had conducted a brief inspection of a residential construction project's footing trench for $360. The case arose when homeowner Cheryl Lynch experienced significant property damage after her home's foundation failed and the structure began subsiding into a slope. Lynch sued Peter & Associates for professional negligence and nuisance, despite having no direct contractual relationship with the firm, which had been hired by her contractor to perform the geotechnical inspection. The court distinguished this case from Bily v. Arthur Young & Co. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 370, which had limited auditors' professional duty to third parties, noting that Bily dealt with purely economic damages, whereas Lynch involved physical property damage, making Bily's policy concerns about unlimited liability inapplicable. The court emphasized that construction professional negligence cases, particularly those involving residential property damage, warrant a different analysis than cases involving economic loss. Reprinted courtesy of Jamison Rayfield, Lewis Brisbois and Brian Slome, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Rayfield may be contacted at Jamison.Rayfield@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Slome may be contacted at Brian.Slome@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    N.J. Appellate Court Applies Continuous Trigger Theory in Property Damage Case and Determines “Last Pull” for Coverage

    November 15, 2017 —
    The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, published an important decision addressing several fundamental issues regarding how a commercial general liability (CGL) policy applies to long-term property damage. The court held that: (1) a continuous trigger theory of coverage may be applied to third-party liability claims involving progressive property damage caused by an insured’s allegedly defective work; (2) the “last pull” (i.e., the cutoff point) of the continuous trigger is when the “essential nature and scope” of the property damage first becomes known or could reasonably be known; and (3) the “last pull” is not when the property damage is “attributed” to the insured’s faulty work. The underlying action in Air Master & Cooling Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co., et al. 1 concerned property damage arising out of the construction of a seven-story, 101-unit condominium building in Montclair, New Jersey. The project’s construction manager hired Air Master & Cooling, Inc. (Air Master) to perform HVAC work on the project, including installing individual HVAC equipment in each resident’s unit from 2005 to 2008. In early 2008, unit owners began complaining about water infiltration and damage to their windows, ceilings, and other portions of their units. The general contractor and developer began assessing the damage and making repairs. Eventually, in April 2010, an expert consultant performed a moisture survey of the roof and discovered 111 areas that were damaged by water infiltration. The expert report indicated that “it [was] impossible to determine when [the] moisture infiltration occurred.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Byrd may be contacted at kab@sdvlaw.com

    Congratulations to Jonathan Kaplan on his Promotion to Partner!

    February 10, 2020 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce the promotion of Jonathan Kaplan to Partner! Jonathan has been with the firm for nearly eight years out of our Newport Beach office. He focuses his practice on general liability defense and construction litigation matters, in addition to handling high-profile plaintiff defect cases. Jonathan earned his law degree from Chapman University School of Law, obtaining a certificate in Environmental, Real Estate and Land Use Law, and went to undergrad at the University of Washington. Jonathan is an active participant within the firm’s Hiring Committee and assists with legal recruitment at the prominent Orange County law schools. Jonathan is also an avid hiker and has coordinated several hiking events for our Southern California offices. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Legal Matters Escalate in Aspen Condo Case

    January 28, 2014 —
    On January 3rd of this year, Chad Abraham reported in the Aspen Daily News that the Ute City building—a condominium on Hopkins Avenue in Aspen, Colorado—“lacks proper entryways to apartments and a basement-level nightclub space for both tenants and the disabled.” The owners, Michael Sedoy and Natalia Shvachko, have been sued by the city after refusing “to allow access to an eastside staircase and elevator for other building residents and disabled patrons of a basement restaurant,” according to the Aspen Daily News. “Their stance has forced the other tenants and the disabled to use a westside, alleyway service entrance, according to the city.” Sedoy and Schvachko’s attorney retorts in court documents “that the city approved of a building map and declarations that allow access through the westside entry in the alley.” Furthermore, in another article by Abraham published in the Aspen Daily News on January 25th, he relates that the owners had filed more than “more than 30 noise complaints with the police and the city’s environmental health department about eateries and bars around their home on Restaurant Row. That led to a trial for the Aspen Brewing Co., which a jury acquitted in about 10 minutes last week.” In addition, the couple is being sued by Mountain Home Window Fashions, the Ute City building general contractor. According to the lawsuit as reported by the Daily Aspen News, Mountain Home claims they are owed $12,332. The owners have counter-sued, alleging “that there were defects in Mountain Home Window Fashions’ work” and that one of the employees “made unauthorized charges on Sedoy’s credit card.” Read the full story, January 3rd article ... Read the full story, January 25th article ... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

    December 20, 2012 —
    In Pioneer Tower Owners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 12 NY3d 302 (2009), the New York Court of Appeals found an "earth movement" exclusion was ambiguous when applied to an excavation. The court now considered whether a similar exclusion, expressly made applicable to "man made" movement of earth, eliminated the ambiguity when loss was created by excavation. Bentoria Holdings, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2012 N.Y. LEXIS 3087 (N.Y. Oct. 25, 2012). Plaintiff's building suffered cracks due to an excavation being conducted on the lot next door. A claim was submitted to Travelers, plaintiff's insurer. Travelers rejected the claim, relying on the earth movement exclusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii.
    Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Gone Fishing: Tenant’s Insurer Casts A Line Seeking To Subrogate Against The Landlord

    October 17, 2022 —
    In J&J Fish on Ctr. Str., Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-644-bhl, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16361, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (District Court) recognized that “[t]here will be no further fish fries on Center Street until someone pays to repair the collapsed floor at J&J Fish on Center Street, Inc. (J&J Fish).” The contenders were: 1) J&J Fish; 2) its’ insurer, Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Insurer); and 3) J&J Fish’s landlord, Vision Land, LLC (Vision). Recognizing Insurer’s right to subrogate against Vision based on the terms of the parties’ lease, the District Court held Insurer owed J&J Fish coverage for the losses it sustained, but that Insurer could subrogate against Vision for anything it had to pay J&J Fish. In J&J Fish, Vision and J&J Fish signed a lease (Lease) for a building (the Building) located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Lease required Vision to “purchase and keep in full force and effect on the building(s) . . . insurance against fire and such other risks as may be included in all-risks policies . . .” Vision, however, never obtained any insurance on the Building. Pursuant to the Lease, Vision also agreed to “maintain and repair the structure including the slab floor and exterior walls of the Premises.” With respect to J&J Fish, the Lease required J&J Fish to maintain “Physical Damage insurance, including but not limited to fire . . . and all other risks of direct physical loss as insured . . . for the full replacement cost of all additions, improvements (including leasehold improvements) and alterations to the Premises.” J&J Fish purchased a commercial property and casualty insurance policy (the Policy) from Insurer. The Policy covered “additions, improvements . . . and alterations” as the Lease required. In addition, it insured the Building itself against “collapse,” subject to certain exceptions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Team Temporarily Stabilizes Delaware River Bridge Crack

    February 02, 2017 —
    The team temporarily stabilizing the Delaware River Bridge and planning its permanent repair also are trying to find a precedent for the bridge’s uncommon fracture. Connecting the Pennsylvania and New Jersey turnpikes, the 61-year-old symmetrical truss bridge was shut down indefinitely on Jan. 20, when a complete fracture in a steel truss was discovered below the bridge deck. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin Rice, ENR
    Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricej@enr.com