BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction safety expert
    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


    Ex-Pemex CEO Denies Allegations of Involvement in Brazil Scandal

    Congratulations to Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, Vik Nagpal, and Devin Gifford, and Associates Shelly Mosallaei and Melissa Youngpeter on Their Inclusion in 2024 Best Lawyers in America!

    South Carolina “Your Work” Exclusion, “Get To” Costs

    NYC Design Firm Executives Plead Guilty in Pay-to-Play Scheme

    Energy Company Covered for Business Interruption Losses Caused by Fire and Resulting in Town-Ordered Shutdown

    A Trivial Case

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: RACHEL CLANCY

    Cal/OSHA-Approved Changes to ETS Will Take Effect May 6, 2022

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    Certain Private Projects Now Fall Under Prevailing Wage Laws. Is Yours One of Them?

    Meet BWB&O’s 2025 Best Lawyers in America!

    Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House

    Gary Bague Elected Chairman of ALFA International’s Board of Directors

    Engineering Report Finds More Investigation Needed of Balconies at New Jersey Condo

    Policy's Operation Classification Found Ambiguous

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage for Contractor's Faulty Workmanship

    Florida Decides Against Adopting Daubert

    New Rule Prohibits Use of Funds For Certain DoD Construction and Infrastructure Programs and Projects

    Inspired by Filipino Design, an Apartment Building Looks Homeward

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (08/17/22) – Glass Ceilings, Floating Homes and the Inflation Reduction Act

    Grenfell Fire Probe Faults Construction Industry Practices

    Contractual Waiver of Consequential Damages

    A Chicago Skyscraper Cements the Legacy of a Visionary Postmodern Architect

    CDJ’s #6 Topic of the Year: Does Colorado Need Construction Defect Legislation to Spur Affordable Home Development?

    The Regulations on the Trump Administration's Chopping Block

    Congratulations to Nicholas Rodriguez on His Promotion to Partner

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Denies Bad Faith Claim in HO Policy Dispute

    What You Need to Know About CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Regulations

    Contractual Assumption of Liability Does Not Bar Coverage

    Defining Constructive Acceleration

    Crisis Averted! Pennsylvania Supreme Court Joins Other Courts in Finding that Covid-19 Presents No Physical Loss or Damage for Businesses

    The G2G Mid-Year Roundup (2022)

    Defining a Property Management Agreement

    The Right to Repair Act (Civ.C §895 et seq.) Applies and is the Exclusive Remedy for a Homeowner Alleging Construction Defects

    AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages

    Pennsylvania Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade

    New OSHA Regulations on Confined Spaces in Construction

    Jury Finds Broker Liable for Policyholder’s Insufficient Business Interruption Limits

    The Pandemic, Proposed Federal Privacy Regulation and the CCPA

    Suffolk Stands Down After Consecutive Serious Boston Site Injuries

    140 Days Until The California Consumer Privacy Act Becomes Law - Why Aren't More Businesses Complying?

    Louisiana Couple Claims Hurricane Revealed Construction Defects

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

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

    Toronto Contractor Bondfield Wins Court Protection as Project Woes Mount

    Canada’s Largest Homebuilder Sets U.S. Growth Plan

    New York Public Library’s “Most Comprehensive Renovation” In Its History

    Contractor Sentenced to 7 Years for “Hail Damage” Fraud

    The Leaning Tower of San Francisco

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall
    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

    State Farm Unsuccessful In Seeking Dismissal of Qui Tam Case

    January 26, 2017 —
    In an insurance related case, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision that State Farm was not entitled to a dismissal of a qui tam case involving its claims-handling after Hurricane Katrina. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, ___ U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 436 (2016). Before Katrina, State Farm issued two types of policies to homeowners: (1) Federal Government-back flood policies and (2) its own general homeowner policies. After Hurricane Katrina, State Farm's policies were responsible for wind damage, and the government policies were responsible for flood damage. Therefore, it was in State Farm's interest to classify hurricane damage as flood-related. 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

    Hail Damage Requires Replacement of Even Undamaged Siding

    February 05, 2015 —
    In a dispute over the property policy's requirement that lost or damaged property be repaired or replaced, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the policy language called for replacement of undamaged siding panels to obtain a color match. Cedar Bluff Townhome Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 Minn. LEXIS 661 (Minn. Dec. 17, 2014). During a hail storm, all 20 of Cedar Bluff's buildings sustained some damage. The roofs on all of the buildings needed to be replaced, and at least one siding panel on each building sustained damage. Eleven of the 20 buildings had three or fewer damaged panels. At the time of the hail storm, the siding was approximately 11 years old, and the color of the panels had faded. Replacement panels were available, but not in the same color. Cedar Bluff submitted a claim under its business owners' policy to American Family. The policy obligated the insurer to pay for "direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises . . . caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss." "Covered Property" was broadly defined in the policy to include buildings at the premises. 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

    The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.

    October 23, 2012 —

    Gene and Diane Melssen d/b/a Melssen Construction (“Melssen”) built a custom home for the Holleys, during which period of time Melssen retained a CGL insurance coverage from Auto Owners Insurance Company. Soon after completion of the house, the Holleys noticed cracks in the drywall and, eventually, large cracks developed in the exterior stucco and basement slab. Thereafter, the Holleys contacted Melssen, the structural engineer, an attorney, and Auto-Owners, which assigned a claims adjuster to investigate the claim.

    In April 2008, the Holleys sent Melssen a statutory notice of claim pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-20-803.5 (“NOC”). In this NOC, the Holleys claimed approximately $300,000 in damages related to design and construction defects. The Holleys also provided a list of claimed damages and estimated repairs, accompanied by two reports from the Holleys’ consultant regarding the claimed design and construction defects. In June 2008, Melssen tendered the defense and indemnity of the claim to Auto-Owners. While Auto-Owners did not deny the claim at that time, it did not inspect the property or otherwise adjust the claim. Thereafter, in October 2008, Auto-Owners sent Melssen a letter denying coverage on the basis that the damage occurred outside of the applicable policy period.

    Ultimately, Melssen settled the claims against it for $140,000.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

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

    Leveraging the 50-State Initiative, Connecticut and Maine Team Secure Full Dismissal of Coverage Claim for Catastrophic Property Loss

    March 23, 2020 —
    On behalf of Gordon & Rees’ surplus lines insurer client, Hartford insurance coverage attorneys Dennis Brown, Joseph Blyskal, and Regen O’Malley, with the assistance of associates Kelcie Reid, Alexandria McFarlane, and Justyn Stokely, and Maine counsel Lauren Thomas, secured a full dismissal of a $15 million commercial property loss claim before the Maine Business and Consumer Court on January 23, 2020. The insured, a wood pellet manufacturer, sustained catastrophic fire loss to its plant in 2018 – just one day after its surplus lines policy expired. Following the insurer’s declination of coverage for the loss, the wood pellet manufacturer brought suit against both its agent, claiming it had failed to timely secure property coverage, as well as the insurer, alleging that it had had failed to comply with Maine’s statutory notice requirements. The surplus lines insurer agreed to extend the prior policy several times by endorsement, but declined to do so again. Notably, the insured alleged that the agent received written notice of the non-renewal prior to the policy’s expiration 13 days before the policy’s expiration. However, the insured (as well as the agent by way of a cross-claim) asserted that the policy remained effective at the time of the loss as the insured did not receive direct notice of the decision not to renew coverage and notice to the agent was not timely. Although Maine’s Attorney General and Superintendent intervened in support of the insured’s and agent’s argument that the statute’s notice provision applied such that coverage would still be owed under the expired policy, Gordon & Rees convinced the Court otherwise. At issue, specifically, was whether the alleged violation of the 14-day notice provision in Section 2009-A of the Surplus Lines Law (24-A M.R.S. § 2009-A), which governs the “cancellation and nonrenewal” of surplus lines policies, required coverage notwithstanding the expiration of the policy. The insured, the agent, and the State of Maine intervenors argued that “cancellation or nonrenewal” was sufficient to trigger the statute’s notice requirement, and thus Section 2009-A required the insurer to notify the insured directly of nonrenewal. In its motion to dismiss, Gordon & Rees argued on behalf of its client that Section 2009-A requires both “cancellation and nonrenewal” in order for the statute to apply. Since there was no cancellation in this case – only nonrenewal – Gordon & Rees argued that Section 2009-A is inapt and that the insurer is not obligated to provide the manufacturer with notice of nonrenewal. Alternatively, it argued that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Regen O'Malley, Gordon & Rees
    Ms. O'Malley may be contacted at romalley@grsm.com

    KB Home Names New President of its D.C. Metro Division

    November 05, 2014 —
    The Washington Business Journal reported that Jon Adler has been named president of Los Angeles-based KB Home's D.C. Metro division. Adler "most recently a partner with The Georgelas Group in McLean, and served as president and CEO of its Bryton Homes division. Prior to that, he held executive roles at Reston-based NVR Inc." KB Home, since 1957, "has built more than half of a million homes," according to the Washington Business Journal. "It currently builds in 10 states." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Buyers Are Flocking to NYC’s Suburbs. Too Bad There Aren’t Many Homes to Sell.

    February 20, 2023 —
    In the midst of the worst US housing slump in a decade, a wave of finance and tech layoffs and drumbeats of a potential recession, open houses in affluent New York suburbs are packed. Offers come in fast — sometimes for hundreds of thousands over asking. A typical scene played out on a cloudy Sunday last month in Scarsdale, a suburb about 20 miles (32 kilometers) north of Manhattan known for its bucolic setting and high-rated schools. At the tail end of an open house, a dozen people were still wandering in and around a 1926 Tudor-style house listed for about $1.93 million. An older couple took video on their iPhone for their offspring too busy to attend, while a younger man walked around with his infant in a chest carrier. The house was in need of some touch-ups. Somebody whispered that the hardwood floors were scratched, another said that the refrigerator looked warped, and a pair of kitchen cabinet doors was missing. It hardly mattered. Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Epstein, Bloomberg and Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    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

    US Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Chicago Cubs Stadium Renovation

    August 07, 2022 —
    The friendly confines of Wrigley Field are not so friendly to wheelchair users, according to federal prosecutors who filed a civil lawsuit July 14 alleging that the Chicago Cubs’ multi-year renovation of the baseball stadium eliminated prime wheelchair seating and did not include other accessible features required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reprinted courtesy of Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record Ms. Mannion may be contacted at manniona@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of