BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut civil engineer 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


    The Utility of Arbitration Agreements in the Construction Industry

    A Look Back at the Ollies

    Ten Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the Best Lawyers in America© 2019

    Weslaco, Texas Investigating Possible Fraudulent Contractor Invoices

    Hunton Insurance Lawyer, Jae Lynn Huckaba, Awarded Miami-Dade Bar Association Young Lawyer Section’s Rookie of the Year Award

    “You’re Out of Here!” -- CERCLA (Superfund) Federal Preemption of State Environmental Claims in State Courts

    NY Court Holds Excess Liability Coverage Could Never be Triggered Where Employers’ Liability Policy Provided Unlimited Insurance Coverage

    A Court-Side Seat: A Poultry Defense, a Houston Highway and a CERCLA Consent Decree that Won’t Budge

    Umbrella Policy Must Drop Down to Assist with Defense

    New Jersey Judge Declared Arbitrator had no Duty to Disclose Past Contact with Lawyer

    Delaware District Court Finds CGL Insurer Owes Condo Builder a Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims — Based on the Subcontractor Exception to the Your Work Exclusion

    Florida Project Could Help Address Runoff, Algae Blooms

    Agreement Authorizing Party’s Own Engineer to Determine Substantial Compliance Found Binding on Adverse Party

    Trumark Homes Hired James Furey as VP of Land Acquisition

    Death, Taxes and Attorneys’ Fees in Construction Disputes

    When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

    Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company

    Agrihoods: The Best of Both Worlds

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers – Two Recognized as Rising Stars

    Construction Costs Must Be Reasonable

    Thank You for 14 Consecutive Years of Legal Elite Elections

    Wildfire Risk Harms California Home Values, San Francisco Fed Study Finds

    Powering Goal Congruence in Construction Through Smart Contracts

    White House Proposal Returns to 1978 NEPA Review Procedures

    House of Digital Twins

    California Supreme Court Shifts Gears on “Reverse CEQA”

    KB to Spend $43.2 Million on Florida Construction Defects

    Washington State May Allow Common Negligence Claims against Construction Professionals

    In Construction Your Contract May Not Always Preclude a Negligence Claim

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

    Hawaiian Electric Finalizes $2 Billion Maui Fire Settlement

    Construction Defect Reform Bill Passes Colorado Senate

    Boots on the Ground- A Great Way to Learn and Help Construction Clients

    With Historic Removal of Four Dams, Klamath River Flows Again Unhindered

    Drones Give Inspectors a Closer Look at Bridges

    Rhode Island Examines a Property Owner’s Intended Beneficiary Status and the Economic Loss Doctrine in the Context of a Construction Contract

    NJ Transit’s Superstorm Sandy Coverage Victory Highlights Complexities of Underwriting Property Insurance Towers

    White and Williams Announces the Election of Five Lawyers to the Partnership and the Promotion of Five Associates to Counsel

    Working Safely With Silica: Health Hazards and OSHA Compliance

    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

    Lay Testimony Sufficient to Prove Diminution in Value

    Atlanta Office Wins Defense Verdict For Property Manager On Claims By Vendor, Cross-Claims By Property Owner

    EPA Announces that January 2017 Revised RMP Rules are Now Effective

    Civility Is Key in Construction Defect Mediation

    Court Denies Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Collapse Claim

    Turkey Digs Out From a Catastrophe

    New Hampshire Asbestos Abatement Firm Pleads Guilty in Federal Fraud Case

    Burg Simpson to Create Construction Defect Group

    Insurer Liable for Bad Faith Despite Actions of Insured Contributing to Excess Judgment

    Genuine Dispute Over Cause of Damage and Insureds’ Demolition Before Inspection Negate Bad Faith and Elder Abuse Claims
    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

    Broken Buildings: Legal Rights and Remedies in the Wake of a Collapse

    October 11, 2021 —
    A tragedy transpired on June 24 in Surfside, Florida, when the Champlain Towers South suddenly fell, becoming one of the country’s most deadly unintentional building collapses. It is imperative that construction industry professionals be aware of the legal issues that are raised by such ill-fated events. Who Is Held Responsible? Who can be held responsible for such disasters lies among several possible parties:
    • The building’s design professionals, particularly its architects and structural engineers. They are charged with ensuring that the building’s design is safe. They must take many factors into account, including, but not limited to, the materials that are used, the foundation, the weight and the height.
    • General contractors and the subcontractors. General contractors implement the design created by the architects and engineers and are responsible for appropriate materials. The general contractor also supervises the subcontractors aiding with multiple areas of the building’s construction and which also share the responsibility of executing the design and maintaining the building’s structural integrity.
    Reprinted courtesy of David J. Pfeffer, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Pfeffer may be contacted at dpfeffer@tarterkrinsky.com

    Seven Coats Rose Attorneys Named to Texas Rising Stars List

    March 12, 2014 —
    Seven attorneys from Coats Rose were named to the “Texas Rising Stars list,” which is comprised of “the top up-and-coming attorneys in Texas for 2014,” according to a press release on PR Newswire. “Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state receive this honor. The selection for this respected list is made by the research team at Super Lawyers.” The Coats Rose attorneys named include “Charles Conrad, Jon Paul Hoelscher, Ryan Kinder, Matthew Moore and Timothy Rothberg in Houston; Brian Gaudet in League City; and Mason Hester in San Antonio.” According to PR Newswire, “For more than 30 years, Coats Rose attorneys have worked with clients in construction/surety law, real estate law, commercial litigation of all types, municipal law, public finance, affordable housing, insurance law, labor and employment law, and governmental relations. Coats Rose is comprised of over 90 attorneys, with offices in Houston, Clear Lake, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, and New Orleans.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Milhouse Engineering and Construction, Inc. Named 2022 A/E/C Building a Better World Award Winner

    September 12, 2022 —
    CHICAGO, IL, Sept. 07, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- PSMJ has awarded Milhouse Engineering and Construction, Inc. (Milhouse) their 2022 Building a Better World award. This recognition is given to a firm in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction industries that significantly and positively impacts the communities they serve. This highly regarded award is chosen by a panel of industry visionaries and leaders based on the impact and nature of the activities completed by the organization. "Firms nominated for an A/E/C Building a Better World Award come in all sizes, from less than 10 architects to over 10,000 civil engineers. What they share is a realization that giving time and resources to those less fortunate is the right thing to do. And more and more, the most sought-after candidates for open positions are judging firms on their level of corporate social responsibility," says Frank A. Stasiowski, FAIA, Founder and CEO of PSMJ Resources, Inc. In 2012, Milhouse established Milhouse Charities, the 501c3 non-profit arm of the Milhouse family of companies. Milhouse Charities supports the Milhouse vision "to be a positive impact" by supporting the education, exposure and advancement of underrepresented youth and minorities in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). Since its founding in 2012, Milhouse Charities has invested over $1 Million and 7,000 hours of community service into STEM, resource, and mentorship programs. The organization has made a global impact having done service in Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New York, Atlanta, and throughout Africa. About Milhouse Engineering and Construction, Inc. Milhouse Engineering and Construction, Inc. is a full-service engineering firm offering expertise in civil, mechanical, electrical, structural and environmental engineering, as well as construction and program management. We deliver creative solutions to complex problems around the globe. Driven by our diverse perspectives, we challenge the status quo to pursue a brighter future for the communities we serve. Milhouse has been named a 'Best & Brightest Companies to Work For' for 17 years in a row and is ranked as an 'ENR Top 500 Design Firm'. Follow us on LinkedIn and Facebook. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    February 15, 2021 —
    In the case of NextSun Energy Littleton, LLC v. Acadia Ins. Co., the United States District Court of Massachusetts held that once direct physical damage from a covered peril causes a covered business interruption loss, any increase in the duration of such business interruption, due to the enforcement of an ordinance or law, extends the coverage period provided for lost income. The Court further held that a policy exclusion for business interruption due to the enforcement of any ordinance or law not in force at the time of the loss only applies when the ordinance or law itself, not the enforcement action that it authorizes, was not in force at the time of the loss. The case involved a solar panel company, NextSun Energy Littleton (NextSun), that operated solar panel arrays providing electricity to the town of Littleton, Massachusetts. Due to a fire, 88 of the solar panels were damaged, and the Town immediately issued a “red-tag” order halting all energy-generating activity pending a safety inspection. The plaintiff purchased insurance for its panels along with “Energy Generating Income” (EGI) coverage, from the defendant, Acadia Ins. Co. (Acadia). The EGI policy covered “direct physical loss or damage” to “renewable energy generating equipment” and also covered the actual loss of surplus power income incurred during the interruption period. However, it excluded interruption of energy-generating income “caused by the enforcement of any ordinance, law, or decree … not in force at the time of loss.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com

    Reservation of Rights Letter Merely Citing Policy Provisions Inadequate

    February 14, 2023 —
    In an unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that the insurers' reservation of rights letters did not provide a basis for denial of coverage. Stoneiedge At Lake Keowee Owners Ass'n Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2022 US. App. LEXIS 34292 (4th Dist. Dec. 13, 2022). The Stoneledge AOAO sued the general contractor Marlick Home Builders, LLC and other defendants after construction of 37 units. The complaint alleged construction defects that resulted in water intrusion and other physical damage. Marlick notified its insurers, Cincinnati Insurance Company and Builders Mutual. Various reservation of rights letter were sent by the insurers. In the underlying case, a judgment was entered against Marlick totalling approximately $1.6 million. As a judgment creditor of Marlickm, Stoneledge sued Cincinnati and Builders Mutual. The district court granted Stonelege's motion for summary judgment, primarily on the ground that the insurers failed to reserve the right to contest coverage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<

    March 01, 2012 —

    The buyer of a leaky home in Venice, California cannot be compelled to arbitration with the seller in a construction defect lawsuit, according to a decision in Lindemann v. Hume, which was heard in the California Court of Appeals. Lindemann was the trustee of the Schlei Trust which bought the home and then sued the seller and the builder for construction defects.

    The initial owner was the Hancock Park Trust, a real estate trust for Nicholas Cage. Richard Hume was the trustee. In 2002, Cage agreed to buy the home which was being built by the Lee Group. Cage transferred the agreement to the Hancock Park Trust. Hancock had Richard Nazarin, a general contractor, conduct a pre-closing walk through. They also engaged an inspector. Before escrow closed, the Lee Group agreed to provide a ten-year warranty “to remedy and repair any and all damage resulting from water infiltration, intrusion, or flooding due to the fact that the door on the second and third floors of the residence at the Property were not originally installed at least one-half inch (1/2”) to one inch (1”) above the adjacent outside patio tile/floor on each of the second and third floors.”

    Cage moved in and experienced water intrusion and flooding. The Lee Group was unable to fix the problems. Hume listed the home for sale. The Kamienowiczs went as far as escrow before backing out of the purchase over concerns about water, after the seller’s agent disclosed “a problem with the drainage system that is currently being addressed by the Lee Group.”

    The house was subsequently bought by the Schlei Trust. The purchase agreement included an arbitration clause which included an agreement that “any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.” The warranty the Lee Group had given to Hancock was transferred to the Schlei trust and Mr. Schlei moved into the home in May 2003.

    Lindemann enquired as to whether the work done would prevent future flooding. Nazarin sent Schlei a letter that said that measures had been taken “to prevent that situation from recurring.” In February, 2004, there was flooding and water intrusion. Lindemann filed a lawsuit against the Lee Group and then added the Hancock Park defendants.

    The Hancock Park defendants invoked the arbitration clause, arguing that Lindemann’s claims “were only tangentially related to her construction defect causes of action against the Lee Group.” On June 9, 2010, the trial court rejected this claim, ruling that there was a possibility of conflicting rulings on common issues of law. “With respect to both the developer defendants and the seller defendants, the threshold issue is whether there was a problem with the construction of the property in the first instance. If there was no problem with the construction of the property, then there was nothing to fail to disclose.” Later in the ruling, the trial court noted that “the jury could find there was no construction defect on the property, while the arbitration finds there was a construction defect, the sellers knew about it, and the sellers failed to disclose it.” The appeals court noted that while Hancock Park had disclosed the drainage problems to the Kamienowiczs, no such disclosure was made to Sclei.

    The appeals court described Hancock Park’s argument that there is no risk of inconsistent rulings as “without merit.” The appeals court said that the issue “is not whether inconsistent rulings are inevitable but whether they are possible if arbitration is ordered.” Further, the court noted that “the Hancock Park defendants and the Lee Group have filed cross-complaints for indemnification against each other, further increasing the risk of inconsistent rulings.”

    The court found for Lindemann, awarding her costs.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Critical Materials for the Energy Transition: Of “Rare Earths” and Even Rarer Minerals

    September 12, 2022 —
    As the world pursues ambitious net-zero carbon emission goals, demand is soaring for the critical materials required for the technologies leading the energy transition. Lithium may be the most well-known of these inputs due to its usage in batteries for vehicles and consumer electronics, but roughly 50 other minerals are central to energy transition technologies. During the coming years, producers, manufacturers and end-users will be increasingly exposed to the roles played by “rare earth” elements (roughly, atomic numbers 57 to 71), platinum group metals, and other materials. The reasons for this heightened interest are simple—even if the underlying environmental, political and technological forces at play are complex:
    • Lower-carbon technologies use different materials than carbon-intensive technologies. The mineral requirements of power and mobility systems driven by renewable, nuclear, hydrogen and fusion energy are profoundly different from those forming the backbone of fossil fuel systems. Minerals such as lithium, nickel, copper, cobalt, and rare earth elements are vital for electric vehicles (EVs), batteries, fuel cells, electricity grids, wind turbines, smart devices, and many other essential and proliferating civilian and military technologies. For example, an offshore wind plant needs 13 times more mineral resources than a gas power plant of a similar size.
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. James, Pillsbury, Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury, Shellka Arora-Cox, Pillsbury and Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Arora-Cox may be contacted at shellka.aroracox@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Coverage Under Installation Policy When Read Together with Insurance Application

    January 16, 2024 —
    A recent case out of the Eleventh Circuit denied an underground contractor’s claim under what appears to be a commercial property installation floater policy (inland marine coverage) that covers the contractor’s materials. Whereas a builder’s risk policy is more expansive, an installation floater is narrower and can provide protection to a contractor for materials and equipment in transit, stored, or being installed subject to the terms of the installation floater policy. It can provide coverage to a trade subcontractor for materials that aren’t covered by builder’s risk. In Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Talcon Group, LLC, 2023 WL 8798053 (11th Cir. 2023), an underground utility contractor that had a general contractor’s license had an installation policy that provided coverage “only for underground utility operations and the site development work tied to those operations.” Talcon Group, supra, at *1. The utility contractor was constructing two residential homes that was on land owned by an affiliated family entity. During construction of the residential homes, a wildfire destroyed the homes prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy. The utility contractor submitted a notice of loss to its insurance carrier that provided the installation policy. The carrier denied the claim because the construction of the homes was NOT the same type of work as the installation of underground utilities which was covered. An insurance coverage lawsuit ensued. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com