BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness construction
    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


    Fifth Circuit Holds Insurer Owes Duty to Defend Latent Condition Claim That Caused Fire Damage to Property Years After Construction Work

    Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace “Prank” With Nail Gun

    Rattlesnake Bite Triggers Potential Liability for Walmart

    Evolving Climate Patterns and Extreme Weather Demand New Building Methods

    Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

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

    Elizabeth Lofts Condo Owners Settle with Plumbing Supplier

    New York Appellate Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

    Can Your Small Business Afford to Risk the Imminent Threat of a Cyber Incident?

    Contractual Setoff and Application When Performance Bond Buys Out of its Exposure

    Recording “Un-Neighborly” Documents

    The Construction Lawyer as Counselor

    Engineers Found ‘Hundreds’ of Cracks in California Bridge

    Condo Collapse Spurs Hometown House Member to Demand U.S. Rules

    Damages to Property That is Not the Insured's Work Product Are Covered

    The Coronavirus, Zoom Meetings and Now a CCPA Class Action

    Compliance Doesn’t Pay: Compliance Evidence Inadmissible in Strict Liability Actions

    Ninth Circuit Rules Supreme Court’s Two-Part Test of Implied Certification under the False Claims Act Mandatory

    Does Arbitration Apply to Contemporaneously Executed Contracts (When One of the Contracts Does Not Have an Arbitration Provision)?

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

    Florida Insurance Legislation Alert - Part I

    Illinois Town Sues over Construction Defects at Police Station

    Examining Construction Defect as Occurrence in Recent Case Law and Litigation

    Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts

    Toll Brothers to Acquire Shapell for $1.6 Billion

    As the Term Winds Down, Several Important Regulatory Cases Await the U.S. Supreme Court

    California Contractor Tests the Bounds of Job Order Contracting

    Bay Area Firm Offers Construction Consulting to Remodels

    Texas “your work” exclusion

    Construction-Industry Clients Need Well-Reasoned and Clear Policies on Recording Zoom and Teams Meetings

    Insurer Waives Objection to Appraiser's Partiality by Waiting Until Appraisal Issued

    Ways of Evaluating Property Damage Claims in Various Contexts

    Deducting 2018 Real Property Taxes Prepaid in 2017 Comes with Caveats

    Zombie Foreclosures Plaguing Various Cities in the U.S.

    Update Regarding New York’s New Registration Requirement for Contractors and Subcontractors Performing Public Works and Covered Private Projects

    No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

    Time Limits on Hidden Construction Defects

    Crime Lab Beset by Ventilation Issues

    How Your Disgruntled Client Can Turn Into Your Very Own Car Crash! (and How to Avoid It) (Law Tips)

    The Increasing Trend of Caps in Construction Contracts and Negotiating Them

    Bond Principal Necessary on a Mechanic’s Lien Claim

    Stormy Seas Ahead: 5th Circuit to Review Whether Maritime Law Applies to Offshore Service Contract

    San Francisco Bucks U.S. Trend With Homeownership Gains

    Home Building on the Upswing in Bakersfield

    Colorado Legislature Kills SB 20-138 – A Bill to Extend Colorado’s Statute of Repose

    Sanctions of $1.6 Million Plus Imposed on Contractor for Fabricating Evidence

    Yes, Virginia, Contract Terms Do Matter: Financing Term Offers Owner an Escape Hatch

    Condominium Construction Defect Resolution in the District of Columbia

    Do Engineers Owe a Duty to Third Parties?

    Fifth Circuit Rules that Settlements in Underlying Action Constitute "Other Insurance"
    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

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    March 28, 2012 —

    Charles and Valerie Myers hired Perry Miller to build their home. Myers v. United Ohio Ins. Co., 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 287 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2012). After completion of the home, Miller was again hired to construct an addition which included a full basement, staircases, bathroom, bedroom, hallway and garage.

    After the addition was completed, one of the basement walls began to crack and bow. Miller began to make repairs, but eventually stopped working on the project. Other contractors were hired to make repairs, but further problems developed. A second basement wall began to bow and crack, allowing water into the basement. The wall eventually had to be replaced. Subsequently, the roof over the addition began to leak in five or six places before the drywall could be painted. The leaks caused water stains on the drywall and caused it to separate and tear. It was discovered the roof needed to be replaced.

    The Myers sued Miller and his insurer, United Ohio Insurance Company. The trial court ruled that the policy did not provide coverage for faulty workmanship, but did provide coverage for consequential damages caused by repeated exposure to the elements. United Ohio conceded liability in the amount of $2,000 to repair water damage to the drywall. United Ohio was also found liable for $51,576, which included $31,000 to repair the roof and ceiling and $18,576 to replace the basement wall.

    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

    A Contractual Liability Exclusion Doesn't Preclude Insurer's Duty to Indemnify

    November 05, 2014 —
    According to Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP's blog, "[I]n Crownover v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20737 (5th Cir. October 29, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior ruling and held that the contractual liability exclusion did not preclude an insurer’s duty to indemnify its insured for an award resulting from the insured’s defective construction." The case involved the Crownovers who were awarded damages for "Arrow's breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction contract." However, Arrow then filed for bankruptcy. Mid-Continent, Arrow's insurer, denied Crownovers' demand for recovery, stating that "the contractual liability exclusion applied because the arbitrator’s award to the Crownovers was based only on Arrow’s breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction agreement." The court agreed with Mid-Continent. Subsequently, the fifth court of appeals "reversed the district court’s ruling and awarded summary judgment in favor of the Crownovers." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Bond Principal Necessary on a Mechanic’s Lien Claim

    September 07, 2020 —
    As anyone that reads this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens are a big part of the Virginia landscape for a construction attorney like me. One option for dealing with a mechanic’s lien here in Virginia that we have not discussed but so often is the ability to “bond off” a lien. In short, the Virginia statute allows a party to essentially substitute a bond valued at a court set multiple of the principal amount of the mechanic’s lien for the memorandum. In exchange, the lien is released of record. Any enforcement action can still proceed with security for the claimant and the property owner feeling better about things because there will be no lien on the title to the land. In many ways this process provides an easier path to resolution for both owner and claimant. First of all, the claimant does not have to deal with a bank or other interest holders in the property (though a recent case discussed below reminds us that certain other parties are necessary). Second of all, the owner does not have the cloud on the title of a mechanic’s lien that may have been filed by a subcontractor over which he has no control. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Existence of “Duty” in Negligence Action is Question of Law

    February 06, 2019 —
    In a negligence action, the issue of whether a duty applies is a question of law. See Limones v. School Dist. of Lee County, 161 So.3d 384, 389 (Fla. 2015) (“[T]he existence of a duty is a legal question because duty is the standard to which the jury compares the conduct of the defendant.”); McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500, 502 (Fla. 1992) (“Since duty is a question of law, an appellate court obviously could reverse based on its purely legal conclusion that no such duty existed.”). Thus, the trial court determines, as a matter of law, whether a legal duty of care applies in a negligence action. Florida law recognizes the following four sources of duty: (1) statutes or regulations; (2) common law interpretations of those statutes or regulations; (3) other sources in the common law; and (4) the general facts of the case. See id. Oftentimes it is the fourth source – the general facts of the case – that comes into play to determine whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Contractor Sentenced to 7 Years for “Hail Damage” Fraud

    November 13, 2013 —
    The hailstorm might have spared homes in New Jersey, but the contractor didn’t. Marcin Gradziel entered a guilty plea when he was accused of filing fraudulent insurance claims for homes in New Jersey. In order to fool the inspectors from the insurance agency, after homeowners agreed to their pitch, Mr. Gradziel would damage their homes. After admitting this in court, Mr. Gradziel has now been sentenced to seven years in prison. His former employers, Precision Building, has gone out of business after paying restitution to the defrauded insurers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    History and Gentrification Clash in a Gilded Age Resort

    October 05, 2020 —
    Newport, Rhode Island, is a small New England beachfront town with a permanent population of 26,000 and an amazing collection of historic homes. Billed as “America’s First Resort,” the 350-year-old city on Aquidneck Island hosts more than 3 million tourists every year. They come for the boating, the famous folk and jazz festivals (both canceled this summer), and the architecture. The narrow streets of the Point along the waterfront are lined with hundreds of modest homes from the early 1700s, one of the largest ensembles of colonial architecture in the country. On Historic Hill sits an assortment of grander antebellum, classical and Gothic Revival structures from the latter part of the 18th and early to mid-19th century, many built by Southern plantation owners. Newport also boasts what is probably the most opulent thoroughfare in the country, a several-mile stretch of Bellevue Avenue lined with shade trees and palatial limestone mansions built by Gilded Age robber barons and industrialists. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alex Ulam, Bloomberg

    Insurer Cannot Abandon Defense Agreement on Underlying Asbestos Claims Against Insured

    June 12, 2023 —
    The court found that the insurer continued to be bound by a defense agreement entered with the insured who merged with another company. Continental Ins. Co. v. Neles-Jamesbury, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52521 (D. Mass. March 28, 2023). In 1990, Neles-Jamesbury became the sucessor by merger to the liabilities of Jamesbury Corp. and Neles, Inc. The companies were both in the business of manufacturing and selling valves. Continental issued two primary CGL policies to Neles, Inc. from 1986 to 1988. After the merger, Neles-Jamesbury was involved in numerous lawsuits that alleged bodily injury from asbestos exposure. Due to the continuing question of whether the policies created duties for Continental, the parties entered into a 2007 Cost Sharing Agreement, which served to clarify and define their respective obligations and coverage in the lawsuits. The agreement noted that Continental wanted to avoid the expense and uncertainties of litigation over defense obligations. 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

    Traub Lieberman Partner Kathryn Keller and Associate Steven Hollis Secure Final Summary Judgment in Favor of Homeowner’s Insurance Company

    April 02, 2024 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner Kathryn Keller and Associate Steven Hollis obtained summary judgment on behalf of a major homeowners’ insurer in a breach of contract action in the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Osceola County, Florida. The underlying claim involved a water loss in a bathroom of the Plaintiff’s property allegedly resulting in substantial damage to the home. The claim had been reported by Plaintiff’s counsel. The Plaintiff had retained counsel and two vendors before giving notice to the insurer. In addition, the insurer’s field adjuster was not provided the opportunity to inspect the plumbing parts that had been allegedly damaged. Specifically, the drainage system had been completely removed and replaced. The insurer retained an engineer, who concluded that the removal of the original plumbing components hindered the ability of the engineer to determine their conditions prior to removal. Meanwhile, the surface conditions of the white PVC pipe appeared bright and shiny as compared to other piping. The insured had also failed to provide a signed, sworn proof of loss within sixty days after the loss. Reprinted courtesy of Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman and Steven A. Hollis, Traub Lieberman Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com Mr. Hollis may be contacted at shollis@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of