BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failure
    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


    Signs of a Slowdown in Luxury Condos

    Guessing as to your Construction Damages is Not the Best Approach

    Follow Up on Continental Western v. Shay Construction

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

    Wisconsin Court of Appeals Re-affirms American Girl To Find Coverage for Damage Caused by Subcontractors

    Clean Water Act Cases: Of Irrigation and Navigability

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss "Redundant Claims" Denied

    Consumer Protections for California Residential Solar Energy Systems

    Home Prices Up, Inventory Down

    Attention Contractors: U.S. Department of Labor Issues Guidance on Avoiding Discrimination When Using AI in Hiring

    In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 01/26/22

    Trump Tower Is Now One of NYC’s Least-Desirable Luxury Buildings

    Struggling Astaldi Announces Defaults on Florida Highway Contracts

    Navigate the New Health and Safety Norm With Construction Technology

    Settling with Some, But Not All, of the Defendants in a Construction Defect Case

    Tender the Defense of a Lawsuit to your Liability Carrier

    BWB&O Partner Tyler Offenhauser and Associate Lizbeth Lopez Won Their Motion for Summary Judgment Based on the Privette Doctrine

    Pollution Created by Business Does Not Deprive Insured of Coverage

    Gain in Home Building Points to Sustained U.S. Growth

    Ninth Circuit Holds Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Applies Beyond All-Risk Policies

    Georgia Law: “An Occurrence Can Arise Where Faulty Workmanship Causes Unforeseen or Unexpected Damage to Other Property”

    Few Homes Available to Reno Buyers, Plenty of Commercial Properties

    Bert L. Howe & Associates to Join All-Star Panel at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Truck Hits Warning Beam That Falls, Kills Motorist at Las Vegas Bridge Project

    Why Should Businesses Seek Legal Help Early On?

    The Shifting Sands of Alternative Dispute Resolution

    Architect Plans to 3D-Print a Two-Story House

    Utility Contractor Held Responsible for Damaged Underground Electrical Line

    Quick Note: Charting Your Contractual Rights With Respect To The Coronavirus

    Colorado Trench Collapse Kills Two

    New Jersey Appellate Court Reinstates Asbestos Action

    Is it the End of the Lease-Leaseback Shootouts? Maybe.

    Lien Law Unlikely To Change — Yet

    Even Where Fraud and Contract Mix, Be Careful With Timing

    Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove

    Travelers v. Larimer County and the Concept of Covered Cause of Loss

    Chicago Debt Document Says $8.5B O'Hare Revamp May Be Delayed

    Commentary: How to Limit COVID-19 Related Legal Claims

    White House Hopefuls Make Pitches to Construction Unions

    Look Up And Look Out: Increased Antitrust Enforcement Of Horizontal No-Poach Agreements Signals Heightened Scrutiny Of Vertical Agreements May Be Next

    Good News on Prices for Some Construction Materials

    Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is Not an "Occurrence"

    Maria Latest Threat to Puerto Rico After $1 Billion Irma Hit

    A Glimpse Into Post-Judgment Collections and Perhaps the Near Future?

    The Air in There: Offices, and Issues, That Seem to Make Us Stupid

    Plehat Brings Natural Environments into Design Tools

    Ex-Construction Firm That Bought a $75m Michelangelo to Delist

    Florida Continues Enacting Tort Reforms, This Time Shortening the Statute of Repose

    SFAA and Coalition of Partners Encourage Lawmakers to Require Essential Surety Bonding Protections on All Federally-Financed Projects Receiving WIFIA Funds
    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

    Changes to Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act in New York Introduced

    February 07, 2022 —
    As discussed in our post on Friday, January 7, 2022, Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act, mandating comprehensive, automatic disclosures regarding insurance in all cases pending in New York courts. Although the law was signed as written, Governor Hochul also made proposed amendments to the law, in the form of a “redline” in an attempt to make the law less onerous on insurance companies and businesses. On January 18, 2022, Senator Andrew Gounardes introduced Senate Bill 7882, incorporating Governor Hochul’s proposed amendments:
    • The time for disclosure would be 90 days of service of the answer, instead of 60.
    • The proof of insurance could constitute a declaration page only, if a party agrees in writing.
    • The required policies to be disclosed only relate to the claim litigated.
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman and Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    March 27, 2019 —
    I’ve often wondered just where the term “punch list” came from, and I’ve found a few sources that seem to make sense, while others not so much. One person claims it came from the telephone installer process of “punching down” terminals on a block. That seems a bit of a stretch though. A blog writer said it had to do with the term ‘punch’ since it means to “punch something up” as in fix it. Another blog writer thought it had something to do with a long forgotten practice. Apparently subcontractors used to each have their own hole punches that would punch a hole with a shape unique to them. They would use these punches to indicate they had corrected the deficiency that was their responsibility. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Duane Craig, Construction Informer

    A Win for Policyholders: California Court of Appeals Applies Vertical Exhaustion for Continuous Injury Claims

    August 24, 2020 —
    Fresh off the heels of the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Super. Ct. of L.A. Cty. (“Montrose III”),1 policyholders scored another victory as another California court rejected horizontal exhaustion in the context of continuous injury cases. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, in SantaFe Braun Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., adopted a rule of vertical exhaustion, holding that “[absent an explicit policy provision to the contrary] the insured becomes entitled to the coverage it purchased from the excess carriers once the primary policies specified in the excess policy have been exhausted.”2 The dispute in SantaFe Braun began in 1992 when asbestos-related claims were first filed against Braun. In 1998, Braun’s three primary insurers agreed in writing to defend and settle the underlying claims against Braun while resolving allocation among themselves. In 2004, Braun filed the current suit against its excess insurers, seeking a declaration that the excess insurers were obligated to help cover the costs of the underlying asbestos-related lawsuits. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Celia B. Waters, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. Waters may be contacted at cbw@sdvlaw.com

    Building Recovery Comes to Las Vegas, Provides Relief

    October 01, 2013 —
    The recession hit the Las Vegas area hard, and so residents are now relieved as the economy recovers. During the recession, the area lost more than 70,000 construction jobs. Those who remained still found it hard t find work. But KVVU, Las Vegas, spoke with Fredy Salguero, a construction worker who still finds getting a steady paycheck a challenge. “You work like one, two, three days a week, and before you were able to work six or seven.” The signs are good that better times will be coming for Mr. Salguero. Housing prices are up 30 percent and there are $7 million of commercial projects on the Las Vegas Strip. With the nation’s highest unemployment rate, Nevada needs the help. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Benford’s Law: A Seldom Used Weapon in Forensic Accounting

    March 05, 2015 —
    What is Digit Analysis and Why it Should be of Interest to Construction Attorneys? Benford’s Law was named after Frank Benford, a General Electric physicist. Mr. Benford was the first to discover that “leading digits” do not follow a uniform distribution pattern as suggested by intuition. If you are like me, the response to such a statement is “huh”? But stick with me because this is important stuff to anyone who suspects a claim presentation may have been rigged, a bit here or a bit there, or maybe all over. It turns out that calculations purportedly based upon naturally, randomly occurring numbers may have been contrived. By “randomly occurring” we mean numbers that occur naturally without human interference as opposed to a contrived selection. Said another way, it is now accepted as a mathematical truth that the pattern of numbers randomly generated can be distinguished from numbers influenced by human intervention. Yikes, glad you told me that before I prepared my taxes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

    Indiana Federal Court Holds No Coverage for $50M Default Judgment for Lack of Timely Notice of Class Action

    August 26, 2019 —
    In Greene v. Kenneth R. Will, a CGL insurer recently prevailed in a declaratory judgment action arising from an underlying class action alleging pollution and nuisance claims against the insured, VIM Recycling LLC, an Indiana-based waste-recycling facility.[1] “[T]his case has some whiskers on it,” the Indiana federal district court recounted in its exhaustive decision granting the insurer relief. The court relieved the insurer of indemnifying a $50 million default judgment against the insured, which, the court observed, “proved to be a bad neighbor” and “nuisance in both the legal and colloquial sense.” The court held that the insured failed to provide timely notice of the class action. “The judgment against the [insured] came about when a group of nearby homeowners decided that they had had enough of VIM’s polluting behavior and brought this class action to recover damages for environmental violations, nuisance and negligence based on the impact of the waste facility on their homes and property,” the court explained. Eventually, the court entered a default judgment against the insured for $50,568,750, plus an award of $273,339.85 in attorney’s fees. Because the insured was “judgment-proof,” the class action plaintiffs “aligned” with the insured “hoping to collect on their monumental judgment” from the insured’s CGL insurer. Within a few weeks’ time, the class action plaintiffs sued the insurer seeking a declaration of coverage for the default judgment against the insured. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

    November 03, 2016 —
    Attorney’s fees become a component of damages that parties seek to recover whenever there is a contractual or statutory basis for them to recover their fees. Parties want to be able to recover all or substantially most of the attorney’s fees they incurred in pursuing their claim. (In my experience, recovering all of the fees incurred is very challenging.) But, to be entitled to attorney’s fees, a party has to be deemed the prevailing party. There is the sentiment that as long as you recover a positive net judgment (even if it is for $100 when your claim was for $50,000) then you will be able to recover your attorney’s fees which will likely exceed the amount that was ever in dispute. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

    New Jersey Appeals Court Ruled Suits Stand Despite HOA Bypassing Bylaw

    January 22, 2014 —
    In the case Port Liberte II Condominium Association v. New Liberty Residential Urban Renewal Company, a New Jersey appeals court ruled that a homeowners association (HOA) could bypass a bylaw that requires unit owners to approve litigation before it is filed, the New Jersey Law Journal reported. Two construction-defect suits were reinstated by the appeals court, and both had been “dismissed based on alleged violation of the bylaws.” The first suit “claimed the defendants' negligence contributed to major construction defects at the 225-unit condominium development, which was completed in 2004” while “the second suit claimed that one section of the development is sinking into the ground because of a failure to properly investigate soil conditions at the former industrial site where the buildings sit.” According to the New Jersey Law Journal, the HOA did not obtain approval from the unit owners prior to commencing litigation because “the statute of limitations was about to expire.” However, the HOA met with the residents in October of 2009 and a vote was cast “72 to 3 to pursue litigation.” In May of 2011 the second suit was dismissed because defendants stated “approval of residents was not obtained.” Another meeting of residents occurred, and another vote cast ratified “both suits by a vote of 65 to 1.” However, Judge Baber, who had previously dismissed both suits, refused to reinstate them. “The Appellate Division said in its ruling that the Condominium Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-1, gives the association the exclusive authority to file suit against builders and other third parties for damage to common areas in the community,” the New Jersey Law Journal reported. “Given its legal responsibility for upkeep of common areas, and its statutory authorization to sue for damages to such areas, the association had standing to file suit, the appeals court said.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of