BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut building code compliance 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


    Be a Good Neighbor: Techniques to Mitigate the Risk of Claims from Adjacent Landowners

    Insurance Law Alert: California Appeals Court Allows Joinder of Employee Adjuster to Bad Faith Lawsuit Against Homeowners Insurer

    NJ Condo Construction Defect Case Dismissed over Statute of Limitations

    How to Determine the Deadline for Recording a California Mechanics Lien

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Named 2019 Super Lawyers

    Is the Manhattan Bank of America Tower a Green Success or Failure?

    Mind The Appeal Or: A Lesson From Auto-Owners Insurance Co. V. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc. On Timing Insurance Bad Faith And Declaratory Judgment Insurance Claims Following A Nunn-Agreement

    Jean Nouvel’s NYC ‘Vision Machine’ Sued Over Construction Defects

    Congratulations to our 2019 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    Highest Building Levels in Six Years in Southeast Michigan

    Navigating the Hurdles of Florida Construction Defect Lawsuits

    How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?

    NAHB Speaks Out Against the Clean Water Act Expansion

    Breach Of Duty of Good Faith And Fair Dealing Packaged With Contract Disputes Act Claim

    ASCE Statement on Calls to Suspend the Federal Gas Tax

    Chutes and Ladders...and Contracts.

    Construction of World's Tallest Building to Resume With New $1.9B Contract for Jeddah Tower

    Florida Law: Interplay of SIR and the Made-Whole Doctrine

    Resolve to Say “No” This Year

    Insured's Complaint Against Flood Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Brazil Builder Bondholders Burned by Bribery Allegations

    Lake Texoma, Texas Condo Case may go to Trial

    NYC Building Explosion Kills Two After Neighbor Reports Gas Leak

    Unjust Enrichment Claims When There Is No Binding Contract

    Re-Thinking the One-Sided Contract: Considerations for a More Balanced Approach to Contracting

    Bally's Secures Funding for $1.7B Chicago Casino and Hotel Project

    Asbestos Confirmed After New York City Steam Pipe Blast

    Colorado SB 15-177 UPDATE: Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee Refers Construction Defect Reform Bill to Full Senate

    Depreciation of Labor in Calculating Actual Cash Value Against Public Policy

    Home Buyer May Be Third Party Beneficiary of Property Policy

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Hold the Pickles, Hold the Lettuce?”

    Architect Not Responsible for Injuries to Guests

    Timely Legal Trends and Developments for Construction

    When is a Residential Subcontractor not Subject to the VCPA? Read to Find Out

    Texas Federal Court Finds Total Pollution Exclusion Does Not Foreclose a Duty to Defend Waterway Degradation Lawsuit

    Not Pandemic-Proof: The Ongoing Impact of COVID-19 on the Commercial Construction Industry

    Pa. Contractor Pleads No Contest to Prevailing-Wage Charges, Pays Workers $20.7M

    Drones, Googleplexes and Hyperloops

    Party Cannot Skirt Out of the Very Fraud It Perpetrates

    Helsinki is Building a Digital Twin of the City

    What if the "Your Work" Exclusion is Inapplicable? ISO Classification and Construction Defect Claims.

    Nevada Assembly Passes Construction Defect Bill

    Tightest Credit Market in 16 Years Rejects Bernanke’s Bid

    Law Firm's Business Income, Civil Authority Claim Due to Hurricanes Survives Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    Smart Cities Offer New Ideas for Connectivity

    Nerves of Steel Needed as Firms Face Volatile Prices, Broken Contracts and Price-Gouging

    Challenging a Termination for Default

    Lakewood First City in Colorado to Pass Ordinance Limiting State Construction Defect Law

    US Homes Face Costly Retrofits for Induction Stoves, EV Chargers

    After Restoring Power in North Carolina, Contractor Faces Many Claims
    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

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Inverse Condemnation Action

    June 02, 2016 —
    The South Carolina Court of Appeals found there was no coverage for an inverse condemnation action based upon the policy's pollution exclusion. South Carolina Ins. Reserve Fund v. E. Richland County Public Service District, 2016 S. C. App. LEXIS 32 (S.C. Ct. App. March 23, 2016). In 2010, Coley Brown filed a complaint against the East Richland County Public Service District ("District") for inverse condemnation, trespass, and negligence. The complaint alleged that the District had installed a sewage force main line and an air relief valve on Brown's street, and the valve released offensive odors on his property many times a day. The stench caused Brown to buy a new piece of property and move, but he was unable to sell the old property. The district tendered the complaint to the South Carolina Insurance Reserve Fund ("Fund"), but coverage was denied. 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

    Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

    August 27, 2013 —
    The Arizona Supreme Court has determined that “non-contracting parties may bring negligence claims for construction defects because such claims are not barred by the economic loss doctrine,” as Richard Erikson writes in a Snell & Wilmer Legal Alert. In the case of Sullivan v. Pulte Home, Pulte had built the home in 2000. The original buyer sold it to the Sullivans in 2003. The Sullivans discovered construction defects in a retaining wall in 2009. The lost their original lawsuit, but the appeals court found that if the Sullivans filed within two years of finding the damage, they could sue. The case then progressed to the Arizona Supreme Court. Erikson points out that in an amicus brief, a number of parties in the Arizona homebuilding industry argued that “the appellate court’s ruling was commercially irreconcilable with expectations of builders, homeowners, homebuyers, engineers and architects in the construction industry.” Nevertheless, the Sullivans prevailed at court. Erikson asks what the actual limit on construction defects must be, given that the court found for plaintiffs who discovered construction defects nine years after the home was built. “How many years after the builder finishes a home does it have to plan on defending defect claims—10, 20, 30 years?” He proposes that the Arizona legislature needs to clarify the specific limits. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    November 18, 2011 —

    OSHA calculates that for each 33,000 active construction workers, one will die on the job each year, making their risk over the course of their careers at one out of every 200 workers. This puts it many times over OSHA’s definition of “significant risk” of 1 death per 1,000 workers over the course of their careers. According to an article in People’s World, “the main risk of death is from falls.”

    At a talk at the American Public Health Association’s meeting, one expert noted that “construction workers make up 6 percent to 8 percent of all workers, but account for 20 percent of all deaths on the job every year.”

    Read the full story…

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

    Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

    August 26, 2015 —
    The American Arbitration Association has made some needed updates to their Construction Industry Arbitration and Mediation Rules, effective July 1, 2015. Among the changes listed at their website are:
    • A mediation step for all cases with claims of $100,000 or more (subject to the ability of any party to opt out).
    • Consolidation and joinder time frames and filing requirements to streamline these increasingly involved issues in construction arbitrations.
    • New preliminary hearing rules to provide more structure and organization to get the arbitration process on the right track from the beginning.
    • Information exchange measures to give arbitrators a greater degree of control to limit the exchange of information, including electronic documents.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment Based Upon Vandalism Exclusion

    June 18, 2014 —
    The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of contract claim because there was a disputed issue of fact regarding the applicability of the vandalism exclusion. Poole v. Untied Servs. Auto. Assn., 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2394 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 16, 2014). The plaintiff rented a residence to tenants. The tenants performed repairs to the residence which resulted in damage in excess of $126,000. The tenants vacated the residence. The plaintiff submitted a claim to USAA for benefits under her homeowners' policy. USAA denied coverage based upon exclusions for damage caused by, among other things, faulty workmanship, renovation and remodeling. Plaintiff sued and USAA moved for summary judgment. 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

    That’s Common Knowledge! Failure to Designate an Expert Witness in a Professional Negligence Case is Not Fatal Where “Common Knowledge” Exception Applies

    June 03, 2019 —
    In reversing summary judgment for defendants, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal recently held that homeowners suing their real estate broker for negligence did not need an expert witness to establish the elements of their causes of action. Ryan v. Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal. App. 5th 637. Typically, expert witnesses are required to establish the standard of care in professional negligence cases. But in Ryan, the court of appeal held that the “common knowledge” exception applied despite this general rule, because the conduct required by the particular circumstance of the case was within the common knowledge of a layman. The conduct in question here? The broker’s failure to disclose to his client that the client’s neighbor told him that she planned extensive renovations that would obstruct the client’s property’s ocean views. Ryan and Patricia Ryan (the Ryans) hired defendant Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc., doing business as Pacific Sotheby’s International Realty (Sotheby’s) and defendant real estate broker to sell their residence in La Jolla, California. During an open house at the residence, a neighbor informed the Ryan’s real estate broker that she planned extensive renovations at her home that would, among other things, permanently obstruct the Ryan’s westerly ocean views and take several years to complete. The real estate broker never informed the Ryans of this, nor the subsequent buyer. The subsequent buyer purchased the property for $3.86 million, and defendants received $96,500 as commission for the sale. The day after escrow closed, the buyers learned of the renovations, and sought to rescind the purchase. Based on advice of defendants, the Ryans refused, and the dispute proceeded to arbitration. The buyer obtained a rescission of the purchase, with the Ryans order to pay damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs in excess of $1 million. The Ryans then sued Sotheby’s and the real estate broker to recover these amounts and damages caused by defendants’ alleged negligence. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lyndsey Torp, Snell & Wilmer
    Ms. Torp may be contacted at ltorp@swlaw.com

    Toll Brothers Surges on May Gain in Deposits for New Homes

    June 01, 2020 —
    Toll Brothers Inc. shares surged after the company posted profit that beat estimates and said deposits on new homes were up in recent weeks, a potential sign of optimism for the luxury housing market. The homebuilder, which focuses on higher-end customers, has struggled during the pandemic. It reported orders for the second quarter that missed estimates and said the key metric had plunged starting March 16, when much of the economy shut down. But investors shrugged off those results, focusing instead on a 13% year-over-year gain this month in deposits, which the company called a “leading indicator of current market demand.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg

    Construction Manager Has Defense As Additional Insured

    September 03, 2015 —
    The court found that the construction manager was an additional insured under the contractor's policy. Turner Constr. Co. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 2015 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2704 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 23, 2015). The owner hired two contractors, Enclos Corp. and Five Star Electric Corp. In their separate contracts with the owner, each contractor agreed to procure a CGL policy naming the owner and a person identified as the construction manager as additional insureds. Travelers was Enclos's insurer, and Navigators Insurance Company was Five Star's insurer. Turner was hired to "provide pre-construction services and construction management services for the Project." 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