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


    Construction Defect Claim not Barred by Prior Arbitration

    Negligence Per Se Claim Based Upon Failure to Pay Benefits Fails

    Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

    Association Insurance Company v. Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC: Federal Court Reaffirms That There Is No Duty to Defend or Indemnify A Builder For Defective Construction Work

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Cover Collapse Fails

    Congratulations to Jonathan Kaplan on his Promotion to Partner!

    New Home for the Aged Suffers Construction Defects

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: KATE GOLDEN

    What to Know Before Building a Guesthouse

    Fire Tests Inspire More Robust Timber Product Standard

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

    2015 California Construction Law Update

    Traub Lieberman Partner Michael Logan and Associate Christian Romaguera Obtain Voluntary Dismissal in Favor of Construction Company Under the Vertical Immunity Doctrine

    California Appellate Court Confirms: Additional Insureds Are First-Class Citizens

    Restoring the USS Alabama: Surety Lessons From an 80-Year-Old Battleship

    DC Circuit Issues Two Important Clean Air Act and Administrative Law Decisions

    While Starts Fall, Builder Confidence and Permits are on the Rise

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    Thanks for the Super Lawyers Nod for 2019!

    NTSB Issues 'Urgent' Recommendations After Mass. Pipeline Explosions

    William Lyon Homes Unites with Polygon Northwest Company

    Norfolk Southern Accused of Trying to Destroy Evidence of Ohio Wreck

    Administrative and Environmental Law Cases Decided During the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term

    Lack of Workers Holding Back Building

    BHA Announces New Orlando Location

    Amazon Hits Pause on $2.5B HQ2 Project in Arlington, Va.

    California Supreme Court Shifts Gears on “Reverse CEQA”

    Texas Couple Claim Many Construction Defects in Home

    A Deep Dive Into an Undervalued Urban Marvel

    Utah Digs Deep and Finds “Design Defect” Includes Pre-Construction Geotechnical Reports

    “Unwinnable”: Newark Trial Team Obtains Unanimous “No Cause” Verdict in Challenging Matter on Behalf of NYC Mutual Housing Association

    Crossrail Audit Blames Busted Budget and Schedule on Mismanagement

    Texas contractual liability exclusion

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Close Call?”

    Drastic Rebuild Resurrects Graves' Landmark Portland Building

    One to Watch: Case Takes on Economic Loss Rule and Professional Duties

    Federal Government Partial Shutdown – Picking Up the Pieces

    Treasure Island Sues Beach Trail Designer over Concrete Defects

    Indemnity Provision Provides Relief to Contractor; Additional Insured Provision Does Not

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    Update Coverage for Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    Insurance Agent Sued for Lapse in Coverage after House Collapses

    Delay In Noticing Insurer of Loss is Not Prejudicial

    Mediation Scheduled for Singer's Construction Defect Claims

    Another Reminder that Contracts are Powerful in Virginia

    Indicted Union Representatives Try Again to Revive Enmons

    No Duty To Defend Additional Insured When Bodily Injury Not Caused by Insured

    Construction Warranties and the Statute of Repose – Southern States Chemical, Inc v. Tampa Tank & Welding Inc.

    Are Contracting Parties Treated the Same When it Comes to Notice Obligations?
    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

    Acquisition, Development, and Construction Lending Conditions Ease

    May 21, 2014 —
    According to the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) Eye on Housing, “[b]uilders and developers continue to report easing credit conditions for acquisition, development, and construction (AD&C) loans according to NAHB’s survey on AD&C financing.” Eye on Housing stated that while “commercial banks remain the primary source of credit for AD&C by a wide margin, private individual investors have emerged as a viable alternative, especially for A&D loans.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pinnacle Controls in Verano

    February 21, 2013 —
    The California Court of Appeals has applied the California Supreme Court’s recent Pinnacle decision to a new case, Verano Condominium Association v. La Cima Development. As in Pinnacle, La Cima sought to compel arbitration of construction defect claims with a homeowners association. The trial court denied La Cima’s attempt to compel arbitration on the grounds that the arbitration agreement was made with the individual homeowners and not the homeowners association. Further, it was determined that the CC&Rs “were unenforceable due to unconscionability.” La Cima appealed, and the appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. After Pinnacle, La Cima sought a review. The Supreme Court of California directed the appeals court to vacate their earlier decision and reconsider, based on Pinnacle. The Fourth Circuit Court has concluded that this conflicted with the ruling in Pinnacle. There, as in Verano, homeowners signed agreements that disputes with the developer would be settled through binding arbitration. The appeals court had found for the community association, but on review, the California Supreme Court reversed this decision. The California Court of Appeals had two issue to consider in this review: whether the arbitration provisions applied to the homeowners association, and whether these provisions were unconscionable. The court concluded that “in light of Pinnacle it is clear the arbitration provisions set forth in the Verano CC&Rs constitute a valid agreement to arbitrate.” On the second question, the Verano CC&Rs were described by the court as “materially indistinguishable” from those in the earlier case. As the state Supreme Court found that those were not unconscionable, clearly neither were these. The case was remanded for further proceedings and La Cima is entitled to recover the costs of the appeal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    More thoughts on Virginia Mechanic’s Liens

    January 28, 2019 —
    As we settled yet another construction case on the courthouse steps today, I began to think about what I should post to begin 2009. Of course, given the construction industry slowdown that is predicted, and the trend at construction projects around the Commonwealth of Virginia that looks to me as if payments will be harder to come by from Owners less willing, for financial reasons, to work with contractors, mechanic’s liens will be more useful, and necessary, now than ever. Virginia mechanic’s liens are unusually strong because your memorandum of lien takes priority over all prior liens on the property that you have improved (including from the bank that is financing the project) except in very limited circumstances. What this means is that, should you properly file and sue to enforce your lien, you get to foreclose and have first crack at any money. By contrast, a judgment lien takes priority only over liens filed after the lien is recorded. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    The Great Fallacy: If Builders Would Just Build It Right There Would Be No Construction Defect Litigation

    January 21, 2015 —
    As the 2015 Colorado legislative session gets into full swing, there is a lot of anticipation and discussion regarding this year’s construction defect reform bill. It seems like every time a reporter broaches this issue in an article, there is a quote from a plaintiffs’ attorney stating that if builders would just build homes right, there would be no need for construction defect litigation. This is the sentiment expressed in the site www.BuildOurHomesRight.com. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the “construction defects” for which associations sue are those only that affect the performance of the homes, or are likely to affect the performance of the homes during the useful life of the component at issue. Unfortunately, this is simply not the case. Over the years, the plaintiffs’ bar has stacked the deck, so to speak, making actionable every technical building code violation, regardless of whether it has any impact, or will ever likely have any impact, on the performance of the homes involved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Grad Student Sues UC Santa Cruz over Mold in Residence

    November 13, 2013 —
    Matthew Richert, a graduate student at UC Santa Cruz, and his wife have filed a lawsuit against UC Santa Cruz, alleging the residence they rented from the university was contaminated with mold, causing problems for them and their children. The family noticed the signs of mold on the walls, but did not initially connect it with their daughter’s health problems, until they mentioned it to their doctor. The doctor sent a letter to the university requesting that the family be transferred to another unit if the mold problem could not be remedied. Mr. Richert made five such requests. Eventually the university moved the family to a hotel as they investigated the unit. The Richert’s unit remains unoccupied, and a Santa Cruz spokesperson noted that 60 of the units showed mold problems. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurance Litigation Roundup: “Post No Bills!”

    April 02, 2024 —
    A company which is in the business of posting “advertising signs on temporary construction sites on behalf of clients” was “sued for trespass, conversion, and other torts” when it entered a site to remove posters. The company sought to have its insurance carrier cover the cost of its defense but was refused. A federal court lawsuit in California against the insurer ensued. The insurer prevailed on a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, and the insured appealed. At issue: had an “occurrence” under the CGL policy taken place – that is, an “accident,” an “unexpected, unforeseen, or undesigned happening or consequence from either a known or unknown cause?” The appellate court noted that the company’s contractor “intended” to enter the work site and remove posters, which gave rise to the trespass claim. For its part, the company urged that the contractor’s actions “were based on erroneous information… [a] mistaken belief that it had the right or duty to enter the site and remove the posters….” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Wisconsin Court of Appeals Holds Economic Loss Doctrine Applies to Damage to Other Property If It Was a Foreseeable Result of Disappointed Contractual Expectations

    January 15, 2019 —
    In Kmart Corp. v. Herzog Roofing, Inc., 2018 Wisc. App. Lexis 842, the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin considered whether the economic loss doctrine barred the plaintiff’s negligence claims against the defendant roofer for damages resulting from the collapse of a roof. The Court of Appeals held that, while some of the plaintiff’s property damages were unrelated to the scope of the contract, the economic loss doctrine still applied to those damages because they were a foreseeable result of the defendant’s breach of the contract. This case establishes that in Wisconsin, the economic loss doctrine bars tort claims for damage to property unrelated to the contract if those damages were a reasonably foreseeable risk of disappointed expectations of the contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Stop by BHA’s Booth at WCC and Support the Susan G. Komen Foundation

    May 12, 2016 —
    If you’re attending the annual West Coast Casualty Seminar at the Disneyland Hotel today and tomorrow, be sure to stop by the Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., booth and Sink a Putt for Charity. This year, participant’s efforts on the green will help benefit the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure. As in years past, sink a putt in the BHA golf challenge and win a $25 Best Buy gift card, and for every successful putt made, BHA will make a $25 cash donation in the golfer’s name to the Susan G. Komen Foundation. New this year, BHA is hosting three Championship Rounds and during those periods BHA will double their charitable contributions. For every ATTEMPTED (sink or miss), BHA will make a $50 donation to Susan G. Komen, and for every putt MADE (sunk), the golfer will also win a $50 Best Buy gift card. Championship rounds are going on today between the times of 10:30am-10:45 am, 3:00pm-3:30pm, and 5:30pm-6:30pm. So be sure to get over to the BHA booth for your chance to support important cancer research as well as possibly taking home a nice gift card for yourself. BHA also wishes to thank Dave Stern for all of his hard work for the construction defect community in putting together this must go to seminar and for promoting such worthwhile charities each year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of