BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut eifs 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


    Check The Boxes Regarding Contractual Conditions Precedent to Payment

    Connecticut Supreme Court Again Asked to Determine the Meaning of Collapse

    Waive It Goodbye: Despite Evidence to the Contrary, Delaware Upholds an AIA Waiver of Subrogation Clause

    San Francisco International Airport Reaches New Heights in Sustainable Project Delivery

    Four White and Williams Lawyers Recognized as "Lawyer of the Year" by Best Lawyers®

    Ensuring Efficient Arbitration of Construction Disputes Involving Mechanic’s Liens

    New Jersey Court Adopts Continuous Trigger for Construction Defect Claims

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Peckar & Abramson Once Again Recognized Among Construction Executive’s “Top 50 Construction Law Firms™”

    Google Advances Green Goal With AES Deal for Carbon-Free Power

    Quick Note: Can a Party Disclaim Liability in their Contract to Fraud?

    With VA Mechanic’s Liens Sometimes “Substantial Compliance” is Enough (but don’t count on it) [UPDATE]

    Should a Subcontractor provide bonds to a GC who is not himself bonded? (Bonding Agent Perspective)

    Neighbor Allowed to Remove Tree Roots on Her Property That Supported Adjoining Landowners’ Two Large Trees With Legal Immunity

    City Drops Impact Fees to Encourage Commercial Development

    City of Pawtucket Considering Forensic Investigation of Tower

    Just Because I May Be An “Expert” Does Not Mean I Am Giving Expert Testimony

    Waiving Workers’ Compensation Immunity for Indemnity: Demystifying a Common and Scary-Looking Contract Term

    Construction Law Advisory: Mechanical Contractor Scores Victory in Prevailing Wage Dispute

    US-Mexico Border Wall Bids Include Tourist Attraction, Solar Panels

    California’s Wildfire Dilemma: Put Houses or Forests First?

    Paul Tetzloff Elected As Newmeyer & Dillion Managing Partner

    Delaware Supreme Court Choice of Law Ruling Vacates a $13.7 Million Verdict Against Travelers

    Treasure Island Sues Beach Trail Designer over Concrete Defects

    Walking the Tightrope of SB 35

    Colorado Passes Compromise Bill on Construction Defects

    Certificates Of Merit For NC Lawsuits Against Engineers And Architects? (Still No)(Law Note)

    Ackman Group Pays $91.5 Million for Condo at NYC’s One57

    Avoiding Wage Claims in California Construction

    Claim for Vandalism Loss Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Be Careful How You Terminate: Terminating for Convenience May Limit Your Future Rights

    Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company

    Why You Make A Better Wall Than A Window: Why Policyholders Can Rest Assured That Insurers Should Pay Legal Bills for Claims with Potential Coverage

    California Supreme Court Confirms the Right to Repair Act as the Exclusive Remedy for Seeking Relief for Defects in New Residential Construction

    Build Me A Building As Fast As You Can

    Contract Disruptions: Navigating Supply Constraints and Labor Shortages

    Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.

    Illusory Insurance Coverage: Real or Unreal?

    Barratt Said to Suspend Staff as Contract Probe Continues

    Los Angeles Team Secures Summary Judgment for Hotel Owner & Manager in Tenant’s Lawsuit

    Mediating Contract Claims and Disputes at the ASBCA

    Ireland Said to Plan Home Loans Limits to Prevent Bubble

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: Tenth Circuit Upholds the “Complaint Rule”

    California Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Commissioner’s Authority to Regulate Replacement Cost Estimates

    BHA Expands Construction Experts Group

    An Occurrence Under Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy Is Based on the Language in the Policy

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    Palo Alto Proposes Time Limits on Building Permits

    Newmeyer & Dillion Partner Aaron Lovaas & Casey Quinn Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Georgia Supreme Court Limits Damages Under Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act
    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. Drawing 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

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

    August 11, 2011 —

    A general contractor was entitled to a defense as an additional insured when the underlying complaint did not allege it was solely negligent. A-1 Roofing Co. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 2011 Ill. App. LEXIS 656 (Ill. Ct. App. June 24, 2011).

    A-1 was the general contractor for a roof resurfacing job at a high school. Jack Frost Iron Works Inc. (“Frost”) was one of A-1’s subcontractors. Frost had a CGL policy with Navigators Insurance Company under which A-1 was an additional insured.

    An employee of Frost’s subcontractor Midwest Sheet Metal Inc. was killed at the job site when a boom-lift he was operating flipped over. The boom-lift had been leased by another Frost subcontractor, Bakes Steel Erectors, Inc. (BSE). The deceased's estate filed suit against A-1, BSE and two other defendants.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage

    June 28, 2013 —
    The Connecticut Supreme Court has recently ruled on a case in which breach of contract and bad-faith claims were made against an insurer in an construction defect case. Joseph K. Scully of Day Pitney LLP discussed the case in a piece on Mondaq. Mr. Scully noted that the background of the case was that Capstone Building was the general contractor and project developer of a student housing complex for the University of Connecticut. Unfortunately, the building had a variety of problems, some of which were violations of the building code. Mr. Scully noted that the building had “elevated carbon monoxide levels resulting from inadequate venting, improperly sized flues.” Capstone entered into mediation with the University of Connecticut. Capstone’s insurer, the American Motorists Insurance Company (AMICO), declined involvement in the participation. Afterward, Capstone sued AMICO. The issues the court covered involved the insurance on this project. The court addressed three questions. The first was “whether damage to a construction project caused by construction defects and faulty workmanship may constitute ‘property damage’ resulting from an ‘occurrence.’” The court concluded that it could “only if it involved physical injury or loss of use of ‘nondefective property.’” The second question dealt with whether insurers were obligated to investigate insurance claims. The court, “agreeing with the majority of jurisdictions,” did not find “a cause of action based solely on an insurer’s failure to investigate a claim.” Under the terms of the contract, it was up to AMICO to decide if it was going to investigate the claim. Thirdly, the court examined whether “an insured is entitled to recover the full amount of a pre-suit settlement involving both covered and noncovered claims after an insurer wrongfully disclaims coverage.” The court concluded that the limits are that the settlement be reasonable, the policy limit, and the covered claims. Mr. Scully concludes that the decision will limit “the scope of coverage for construction defect claims” and “also imposes reasonable requirements on an insured to allocate a settlement between covered and noncovered claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Toll Brothers Faces Construction Defect Lawsuit in New Jersey

    October 10, 2013 —
    Toll Brothers is facing a construction defect lawsuit from homeowners in West Windsor, New Jersey. The homebuilding company had a lengthy battle with the town over its intention to build the community they named the Estates at Princeton Junction, now its residents are alleging defects in the construction of their homes and the common infrastructure. The community is close to Princeton University, parts of which are also in West Windsor. Toll Brothers states that they are “working very closely with the HOA Board to investigate the claims that have been alleged in the lawsuit.” Andrea Marushack, the spokesperson for Toll Brothers would not elaborate due to the lawsuit. Among the allegations are claims that the townhomes in the development are prone to water intrusion. The complaint also claims that there were defects in the construction of sidewalks, roads, and other common features. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Court Forces Insurer to Play Ball in COVID-19 Insurance Coverage Suit

    December 13, 2022 —
    One of the threshold issues in COVID-19 insurance coverage cases that have been brought across the country is whether the policyholder’s allegations meet the applicable pleading standard in alleging that the virus caused physical loss or damage. In many cases, the courts have gotten it wrong, effectively holding policyholders to a higher standard than required. But recently, a California federal judge righted those wrongs by acknowledging the correct pleading standard in that case, which is whether the allegations state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The Court, here, correctly recognized that the policyholder, the Los Angeles Lakers, met that pleading standard when it alleged that the COVID-19 virus can cause physical loss or damage by physically altering property. In its complaint, the Los Angeles Lakers alleged that the virus physically altered its property by changing its chemical and physical property conditions, creating viral vectors that required remedial measures before the property was safe again. Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 591 F. Supp. 3d 672 (C.D. Cal. 2022), adhered to on reconsideration, 2022 WL 16571193 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2022). The Court agreed that these allegations by the Lakers adequately pled physical alteration to support a claim for property damage. The insurer requested reconsideration of the decision, and the Court emphatically affirmed its prior decision, explaining its rationale as follows: The Court lacks the scientific expertise necessary to conclude, based solely on the allegations in the FAC . . . that it is not plausible for the Lakers’ property to have been physically altered by the Virus, which the Lakers adequately alleged. Consequently, the Court, in the March 17 Order, concluded that the Lakers’ theory was plausible. Whether the Lakers can actually prove its theory will be determined at summary judgment or trial. Reprinted courtesy of Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Multisensory Marvel: Exploring the Innovative MSG Sphere

    August 14, 2023 —
    The U.S. entertainment industry keeps amazing me. The first Disneyland opened in 1955, and ever since the industry has created experiences that amazingly combine architecture and technology. The latest example is the MSG Sphere which will open its doors in Las Vegas, Nevada, on September 29, 2023. It is a large-scale immersive entertainment space hosting various events, concerts, competitions, and residencies from the world’s biggest artists. The world’s largest spherical structure The MSG Sphere was initially a partnership between the Madison Square Garden Company (MSG) and Las Vegas Sands Corporation, which Apollo Global Management later replaced. The project’s final construction costs were $2.3 billion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Home Prices Up in Metro Regions

    October 30, 2013 —
    Housing prices in the largest metro regions beat expectations, rising 12.8% in August as compared to a year before. Analysts were expecting weaker increases; instead these have been the fastest increases in seven years. The metropolitan area with the largest increase was Las Vegas, where houses increased in price by 29.2%. Three California regions — San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego — also saw increases of greater than 20%. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    'Regluing' Oregon State's Showcase for Mass Timber

    September 17, 2018 —
    The tally of how many defective cross-laminated timber panels need replacement on a $79-million college of forestry building under construction at Oregon State University is almost complete, nearly six months after two layers of a seven-layer CLT floor panel, 30 ft x 4 ft, came unglued and crashed 14 ft from the third to the second floor of the three-story building. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
    Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Third-Party Defendant

    May 06, 2024 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle won summary judgment in favor of Third-Party Defendant, a general contracting company (the “Contracting Company”), in a personal injury action brought in Suffolk County. In the underlying matter, the Plaintiff—an employee of the Contracting Company—alleged that they sustained injuries from an incident which occurred when they were struck by a skid-steer loader owned by the Co-Defendant masonry company (the “Masonry Company”) and operated by the president and owner of the Co-Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff construction company (the “Construction Company”). The Plaintiff brought claims against the Defendant companies for common law negligence and violations of Labor Law § § 200, 240, and 241, as well as Industrial code (12 NYCRR) subpart 23-2. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa Rolle, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of