BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural 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


    Mediation v. Arbitration, Both Private Dispute Resolution but Very Different Sorts

    Hunton Insurance Recovery Partner Michael Levine Quoted on Why Courts Must Consider the Science of COVID-19

    Defense Dept. IG: White House Email Stonewall Stalls Border Wall Contract Probe

    A Few Green Building Notes

    New York Court Finds Insurers Cannot Recover Defense Costs Where No Duty to Indemnify

    Distressed Home Sales Shrinking

    Proving & Defending Lost Profit Damages

    2017 Construction Outlook: Slow, Mature Growth, but No Decline, Expected

    Insurer's Daubert Challenge to Insured's Expert Partially Successful

    LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

    Rising Construction Disputes Require Improved Legal Finance

    Is Your Construction Business Feeling the Effects of the Final DBA Rule?

    One More Mechanic’s Lien Number- the Number 30

    Augmenting BIM Classifications – Interview with Eveliina Vesalainen of Granlund

    Ill-fated Complaint Fails to State Claims Against Broker and FEMA

    FEMA, Congress Eye Pre-Disaster Funding, Projects

    If a Defect Occurs During Construction, Is It an "Occurrence?"

    Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment in Pinellas County Circuit Court

    Insurance and Your Roof

    Florida Court of Appeals Rejects Insurer’s Attempt to Intervene in Underlying Lawsuit to Submit Special Interrogatories

    California Federal Court Finds a Breach of Contract Exclusion in a CGL Policy Bars All Coverage for a Construction Defect Action

    Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part I

    Drafting a Contractual Arbitration Provision

    Association Bound by Arbitration Provision in Purchase-And-Sale Contracts and Deeds

    Idaho District Court Affirms Its Role as the Gatekeeper of Expert Testimony

    In Appellate Division First, New York Appellate Team Successfully Invokes “Party Finality” Doctrine to Obtain Dismissal of Appeal for Commercial Guarantors

    Modified Plan Unveiled for Chicago's Sixth-Tallest Tower

    Texas contractual liability exclusion

    Denver Condo Development Increasing, with Caution

    Is Your Contract “Mission Essential?” Recovering Costs for Performing During a Force Majeure Event Under Federal Regulations

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Coverage for Post-Completion Defects

    It’s a COVID-19 Pandemic; It’s Everywhere – New Cal. Bill to Make Insurers Prove Otherwise

    Federal Court Again Confirms No Coverage For Construction Defects in Hawaii

    Insurer Springs a Leak in Its Pursuit of Subrogation

    First Circuit Limits Insurers’ Right to Recoup Defense Costs or Settlement Payments

    Walkability Increases Real Estate Values

    Partner Jason Taylor and Senior Associate Danielle Kegley Successful in Appeal of Summary Disposition on Priority of Coverage Dispute in the Michigan Court of Appeals

    Electrical Subcontractor Sues over Termination

    Working Safely With Silica: Health Hazards and OSHA Compliance

    When an Insurer Proceeds as Subrogee, Defendants Cannot Assert Contribution Claims Against the Insured

    COVID-19 Win for Policyholders! Court Approves "Direct Physical Loss" Argument

    Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Excess Can Sue Primary for Equitable Subrogation

    Appraisal Award for Damaged Roof Tiles Challenged

    Parties to an Agreement to Arbitrate May be Compelled to Arbitrate with Non-Parties

    Why Is It So Hard to Kill This Freeway?

    Airbnb Declares End to Party!

    Gene Witkin Celebrates First Anniversary as Member of Ross Hart’s Mediation Team
    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

    Breaking News: Connecticut Supreme Court Decides Significant Coverage Issues in R.T. Vanderbilt

    December 16, 2019 —
    On October 4, 2019 (almost two years after granting certification), the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s rulings on four key coverage issues in R.T. Vanderbilt Company v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, et al. The coverage dispute in Vanderbilt concerns underlying actions alleging that talc and silica mined and sold by the insured contained asbestos and/or caused asbestos-related disease. The case has been proceeding in phases, two of which have been tried to date, resulting in the matter on appeal. (1) “Continuous Trigger” Theory of Coverage Applies: The Court affirmed and adopted the Appellate Court’s opinion applying a “continuous trigger” for the underlying claims at issue, and agreed that the trial court properly excluded testimony from medical experts the insurers had proffered to prove that the asbestos disease process did not support a continuous trigger. (2) The “Unavailability of Insurance” Exception to Time-on-Risk Pro Rata Allocation Applies: The Court affirmed and adopted the Appellate Court’s ruling that (a) damages and defense costs should not be allocated to any period in which insurance was “unavailable” in the market, (b) the insurers bear the burden of proving that coverage for asbestos liabilities was available to the policyholder after the date asbestos exclusions were added to the policies and (c) the insured bears the burden of proving that it was unable to obtain asbestos coverage prior to 1986 (when such insurance was generally available). The Appellate Court recognized that, in certain circumstances, there could be an “equitable exception” to the unavailability rule if the insured continued to manufacture products containing asbestos after 1986 with the knowledge that such products were hazardous and uninsurable (circumstances which the court found were not present in this case). Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams LLP and Ciaran B. Way, White and Williams LLP Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Way may be contacted at wayc@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fort Lauderdale Partner Secures Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in High-Stakes Negligence Case

    June 10, 2024 —
    Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (June 3, 2024) - Fort Lauderdale Managing Partner Cheryl Wilke recently secured a defense verdict for civil engineering firm Gulfstream Design Group and its owner, Matthew Lahti, in a high-stakes professional negligence case in which the plaintiff sought more than $20 million. The verdict by a six-person jury in St. Augustine followed a nine-day trial. The case involved a 100-acre tract of land in St. Johns County, Florida, owned by the plaintiff, Cynthia Taylor. The land was zoned for rural farming, and she wished to sell the property for development. She entered into a contract with Southeast Georgia Acquisitions (“SGA”) to sell the property with the goal of creating a 200-home subdivision. SGA hired Doug Burnett as land use counsel and our client, Gulfstream Design Group, as the civil engineer to design the project. In St. Johns County, only a property owner can submit a Planned Unit Development Plan (“PUD”) for the purpose of rezoning. In this case, Burnett and Gulfstream created text and a proposed map for the PUD and submitted it for approval. The PUD was approved first at the staff level, then by planning and zoning and then by the County Commission. All the services were provided prior to closing with PUD approval, a condition of sale. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Do Not Pass Go! Duty to Defend in a Professional Services Agreement (law note)

    April 03, 2019 —
    Recently a client asked me to review a contract for his Firm. The Owner, who had prepared the draft, had inserted a rather stringent “duty to defend” clause. As I told my client, a duty to defend clause is not a good idea for a couple of reasons. First, if you agree to provide a defense, what that means is that you are footing the bill for the Owner if the Owner is sued by another party. Think about that for a minute. You are paying legal fees for someone else’s legal defense. You may or may not be able to direct the litigation or have a say in who is hired. Can you say open check book? Secondly, and more importantly, the duty to defend is almost never insurable. What that means is that your professional liability carrier will not be footing the bill—your Firm will be doing it. This is not a case of adding the Owner as an additional insured, so do not confuse the two. Agreeing to a duty to defend is an extremely burdensome, and potentially costly, mistake. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    Association Bound by Arbitration Provision in Purchase-And-Sale Contracts and Deeds

    January 11, 2022 —
    When an association files a lawsuit pertaining to matters of common interest, the lawsuit is typically filed as a class on behalf of the owners that make up the association (i.e., the association’s members). How do you deal with an arbitration provision that is included in an owner’s purchase-and-sale agreement or recorded in the deed? The recent opinion in Lennar Homes, LLC v. Martinique at the Oasis Neighborhood Association, Inc., 47 Fla. L. Weekly D15c (Fla 3rd DCA 2021) dealt with this exact issue with a homeowner’s association ruling that the association was required to arbitrate its latent construction defect claims against the developer (homebuilder). In this case, a community in Miami consisted of 26 townhouse buildings. There was a broad arbitration provision in each owner’s purchase-and-sale agreement that included disputes relating to property damage. Further, with each closing, a special warranty deed was recorded that included a nearly identical arbitration provision. The association became aware of latent defects relating to the exterior walls of the buildings and filed a lawsuit against the developer (homebuilder). The developer moved to compel the dispute to arbitration which was denied by the trial court because there was no specific agreement between the association and the developer that required arbitration and the lawsuit dealt with matters that the association was obligated to maintain. 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

    Sales Pickup Shows Healing U.S. Real Estate Market

    June 26, 2014 —
    Americans snapped up previously owned homes in May in the biggest monthly sales gain in almost three years, a sign the residential real estate market is regaining its footing after a stumble early in the year. Purchases climbed 4.9 percent, the biggest increase since August 2011, to a 4.89 million annualized rate, figures from the National Association of Realtors showed today in Washington. The level was the strongest since October. The report also showed price appreciation is slowing as more homes become available. A more balanced market, including a wider selection of properties, smaller price gains and still-low borrowing costs, may encourage more Americans to buy as employment strengthens. Improving demand will probably spur a pickup in construction, and builders such as Hovnanian Enterprises Inc. (HOV) are optimistic. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shobhana Chandra, Bloomberg
    Ms. Chandra may be contacted at schandra1@bloomberg.net

    “Other Insurance” and Indemnity Provisions Determine Which Insurer Must Cover

    September 01, 2011 —

    A policy’s “other insurance” clause and a contractual indemnity provision were at the root for determining which of two insurers had to cover for injuries at a construction site. Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 76061 (N.D. Calif. July 14, 2011).

    Hathaway was the general contractor at a demolition and construction project. Hathaway was insured by Zurich. Reinhardt Roofing was the roofing subcontractor. Reinhardt was insured by Valley Forge under a policy which named Hathaway as an additional insured. The subcontract also required Reinhardt to indemnify Hathaway for acts or omissions arising from Reinhardt’s work unless Hathaway was solely negligent.

    Four of Reinhardt’s workers were injured when a canopy roof on which they were working collapsed. At the time of the accident, Hathaway’s on-site supervisor was inspecting a gap in the canopy roof, but did not order Reinhardt’s workers to stop working. 

    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

    General Contractors: Consider Importance of "Primary Noncontributory" Language

    February 16, 2017 —
    In prior articles, I reinforced the importance of general contractors including “primary and noncontributory” language in subcontracts and requiring the subcontractor to provide an analogous “primary and noncontributory” endorsement. As a general contractor this is important, particularly since you are going to require the subcontractor to (i) indemnify you for claims relating to personal injury, property damage, or death, and (ii) identify you as an additional insured under its commercial general liability (CGL) policy for claims arising out of the subcontractor’s scope of work. The “primary and noncontributory” language in your subcontracts allows you to maximize the value of your additional insured status. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    New York Court Grants Insured's Motion to Dismiss Construction Defect Case and Awards Fees to Insured

    February 05, 2024 —
    The New York Supreme Court granted the insured's motion to dismiss the insurer's complaint seeking relief on its duty to indemnity and awarded fees to the insured. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Crystal Curtain Wall Sys. Corp., 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 22368 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 27, 2023). The case arose from a construction-related property damage action. Crystal entered a subcontract with the general contractor to design and install window and curtain systems in mixed residential and commercial buildings. When unit owners took possession, water infiltration during a rainstorm caused property damage and moldy conditions. The unit owners sued asserting claims against Crystal for the cost of repair or replacement of the allegedly defective curtain wall, damage to unit owners' personal property, diminution in value of the units, and delay damages consisting of increasing interest and carrying costs. 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