BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect 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


    Detroit Craftsmen Sift House Rubble in Quest for Treasured Wood

    Construction Materials Company CEO Sees Upturn in Building, Leading to Jobs

    Render Unto Caesar: Considerations for Returning Withheld Sums

    Connecticut’s New False Claims Act Increases Risk to Public Construction Participants

    TOLLING AGREEMENTS: Construction Defect Lawyers use them to preserve Association Warranty Claims during Construction Defect Negotiations with Developers

    Property Owners Sue San Francisco Over Sinking Sidewalks

    Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal Suggests Negligent Repairs to Real Property Are Not Subject to the Statute of Repose

    Inside the Old Psych Hospital Reborn As a Home for Money Managers

    Insurer's Failure to Settle Does Not Justify Multiple Damages under Unfair Claims Settlement Law

    University of California Earthquake Report Provides List of Old Concrete Buildings in LA

    Collapse of Improperly Built Deck Not An Occurrence

    Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned

    Be Careful with Good Faith Payments

    Do You Have A Florida’s Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act Claim

    In Personal Injury Actions, Prejudgment Interest on Costs Not Recoverable

    Does the UCC Apply to the Contract for the Sale of Goods and Services

    Montana Supreme Court Tackles Decade-Old Coverage Dispute Concerning Asbestos Mineworker Claims

    Los Angeles Considering Census of Seismically Unstable Buildings

    Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That’s Not the Most Interesting Part

    Ohio Supreme Court Case to Decide Whether or Not to Expand Insurance Coverage Under GC’s CGL Insurance Policies

    Texas Supreme Court: Breach of Contract Not Required to Prevail on Statutory Bad Faith Claim

    Apartment Construction Ominously Nears 25-Year High

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    Florida Court Gives Parties Assigned a Subrogation Claim a Math Lesson

    Florida Supreme Court Decision Limits Special Damages Presented to Juries

    Illinois Insureds are Contesting One Carrier's Universal Denial to Covid-19 Losses

    Developer Transition - Maryland Condominiums

    BHA’s Next MCLE Seminar in San Diego on July 25th

    New Safety Standards Issued by ASSE and ANSI

    U.S. District Court of Colorado Interprets Insurance Policy’s Faulty Workmanship Exclusion and Exception for Ensuing Damage

    Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Calls for CFPB Investigation into Tenant Screening Businesses

    There is No Claims File Privilege in Florida, Despite What Insurers Want You to Think

    Insurance Policy Language Really Does Matter

    Georgia State and Local Governments Receive Expanded Authority for Conservation Projects

    Understand Agreements in Hold Harmless and Indemnity Provisions

    Implementation of CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards Delayed

    Is Drone Aerial Photography Really Best for Your Construction Projects?

    Examination of the Product Does Not Stop a Pennsylvania Court From Applying the Malfunction Theory

    Franchisors Should Consider Signing a Conditional Lease Assignment Rather Than a Franchisee’s Lease

    Courts Are Ordering Remote Depositions as the COVID-19 Pandemic Continues

    Red Tape Is Holding Up a Greener Future

    Fannie Overseer Moves to Rescue Housing With Lower Risk to Lenders

    What If an Irma-Like Hurricane Hit the New York City Metro Area?

    Power Point Presentation on Nautilus v. Lexington Case

    Rhode Island District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Case for Spoliation Due to Potential Unfair Prejudice to Defendant

    Scaffolding Purchase Suggests No New Building for Board of Equalization

    Court Finds Duty To Defend Environmental Claim, But Defense Limited to $100,000

    Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: LISA D. LOVE

    Chambers USA 2021 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm
    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

    The International Codes Development Process is Changing to Continue Building Code Modernization

    March 06, 2023 —
    Washington D.C., March 02, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The International Code Council is revising its rigorous code development process. The changes will take effect in 2024-2026 for the development of the 2027 International Codes (I-Codes) and will move the development process to an integrated and continuous three-year cycle. In the new timeline, year one will include two Committee Action Hearings for Group A Codes; year two will include two Committee Action Hearings for Group B Codes; and year three will be the joint Public Comment Hearings and Online Governmental Consensus Vote for both Group A and B Codes. The addition of the second Committee Actions Hearings in year one and two will foster a more in-depth vetting of code change proposals, allowing an opportunity for the committee members to review and evaluate the original proposals and consider the submitted responses. This also provides more opportunity for proponents to build consensus for their code change proposal and ensure the best version of their intended improvement to the existing codes. Additionally, with combined Public Comment Hearings in the third year, voting members are able to vote on all suggested changes to the next edition of the I-Codes at one time. The updated process also provides more opportunity for proposed new referenced standards to be developed and finalized on a consistent timeline regardless of the group (Group A or B) with which they are associated. About the International Code Council The International Code Council is the leading global source of model codes and standards and building safety solutions. Code Council codes, standards and solutions are used to ensure safe, affordable and sustainable communities and buildings worldwide. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Damages in Excess of Policy Limits Do Not Trigger Right to Independent Counsel

    June 22, 2020 —
    Under Illinois law, an insurer’s duty to defend includes the right to control the defense, which allows insurers to protect their financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. However, where a conflict of interest exists, the insured, rather than the insurer, is entitled to assume control of the defense of the underlying action. If this occurs, the insurer satisfies its obligation to defend by reimbursing the insured for the cost of defense provided by independent counsel selected by the insured. What circumstances and situations arise to the level of an actual conflict of interest between the insurer and insured are often grounds for dispute. In Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America, 2020 IL App (1st) 182491 (Apr. 7, 2020), the Illinois Appellate Court addressed whether damages awarded by a jury in excess of the policy limits were sufficient to trigger a right to independent counsel for post-trial and appellate proceedings. According to the Illinois Appellate Court, at least under the facts of the Ryerson case, the answer is “no.” In Ryerson, Nancy Hoffman sued Ryerson for injuries sustained in a tractor-trailer accident. Ryerson tendered the suit to its primary insurer, Travelers, and its umbrella insurer, Illinois National. The policy limits were $2 million and $25 million, respectively. A jury found in favor of Hoffman for over $27.6 million in damages, and Ryerson appealed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

    Motion for Summary Judgment Gets Pooped Upon

    December 16, 2023 —
    I’ve read some crappy motions over the years, some of which opposing counsel might even attribute to me, but I don’t think I’ve ever written about poop and motions. In Beebe v. Wonderful Pistachio & Almonds LLC, a summary judgment motion filed by a project owner sued by a construction worker for personal injuries caused by bird poop, which in turn caused a nasty fungal infection which spread to his brain, resulted in a not-so-wonderful ending for Wonderful. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Tick Tock: Don’t Let the Statute of Repose or Limitations Time Periods Run on Your Construction Claims

    February 28, 2022 —
    In Wascher v. ABC Ins. Co., No. 2020AP1961, 2022 Wisc. App. LEXIS 110 (Feb. 9, 2022), the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin considered whether the plaintiffs were barred — by Wisconsin’s 10-year statute of repose for improvements to real property claims and the six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims — from bringing a lawsuit against the original builders of their home. The plaintiffs alleged negligence and breach of contract against the masonry subcontractors, asserting that they improperly installed the exterior stone cladding. The court found that the plaintiffs’ claims against the original builders were time-barred. In 2005, the plaintiffs, Thomas and Pamela Wascher (the Waschers) retained Mathwig Builders (Mathwig) as the general contractor for the construction of their home in Greenville, Wisconsin. Mathwig subcontracted defendants Natural Surfaces, LLC (Natural Surfaces) and Carved Stone Creations (CSC) to install the stone cladding on the exterior walls and patio for the home. On November 3, 2008, the Township of Greenville inspected the home and granted the Waschers permission to occupy the residence. The Waschers moved into the home within the next few weeks. In early 2009, the Waschers discovered efflorescence on the stone cladding for the patio. In 2010, the Waschers hired CSC to repair the stone cladding. CSC removed some stone, which revealed that flashing had not been installed behind the stone, which caused water to infiltrate the stone and patio. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

    June 17, 2011 —

    The Louisiana Court of Appeals rejected an appeal to reverse a summary judgment granted to Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company. Terrence and Rhonda Ross contracted for a remodel of their home in which Chinese-made drywall was used. When the drywall emitted harmful gasses, the Rosses filed a claim under their insurance policy. This claim was rejected under four exclusions: for faulty materials, latent defect, loss by corrosion, and loss by pollution. After the claim was denied, the Rosses sued Louisiana Citizens.

    In April 2010, the lower court granted a summary judgment, followed by a May, 2010 order dismissing the Rosses’ claims against Louisiana Citizens. The Rosses appealed this decision. In the court’s review, they agreed with Louisiana Citizens and the lower court on all counts. Although the Rosses maintained that the drywall was not defective (as it still functioned as drywall), the court ruled that its emission of sulfuric gases was a defect. Further, as it was in place for two years before this became evident, it was also a latent defect. Damage to the Rosses’ home consisted of corrosion damage caused by the pollutants in the drywall.

    The Rosses made an additional claim that since their policy covered smoke damage, this should be covered, as the harm was done by sulfuric gases. The court noted that the contract specifies “fumes or vapors from a boiler, furnace, or related equipment,” none of which apply in this case.

    Read the court’s decision

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

    Louisiana Couple Claims Hurricane Revealed Construction Defects

    January 22, 2013 —
    A Louisiana couple has sued the company that raised their home, claiming that faults with the work were revealed after Hurricane Isaac hit the home. Crescent City Construction raised the Marcev’s home in 2006. They were satisfied with the work until the 2012 hurricane. The Marcevs claim in their suit that the work is covered by a ten-year warranty. They are suing for a full refund of their payments to Crescent City Construction, as well as architectural fees, damages, interest, and attorney costs. Their claim is that as a result of the work, their home now has structural defects and fails to meet building codes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    ASCE Statement on Calls to Suspend the Federal Gas Tax

    June 27, 2022 —
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – ASCE strongly opposes the recent announcement from the Biden Administration to suspend the current 18.4 cents-per-gallon federal gasoline tax for three months. Even at the same modest figure of 18 cents per gallon for over 25 years since 1993, the motor fuel tax has represented a reliable federal revenue source for communities to fix and modernize their network of roads, bridges, and transit systems. Suspending the gas tax would result in the loss of billions in revenue from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), significantly diminishing much of the progress made in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law at a time when Americans expect improvements to the nation's roads, bridges, and transit systems. Replacing this lost revenue with funds from other sources is not a viable long-term solution and sets a damaging precedent. Encouraging states to follow suit will compound this bad idea and further exacerbate our nation's infrastructure funding challenges. Our transportation system, including roadways, bridge spans, and transit networks, can't rely on novel, unpredictable funding. Further, there is little guarantee that motorists will see any real relief at the pump. Gas holidays aren't price controls; the manager at the gas station still gets to set their price. Oil producers have benefited significantly in the past from previous state-level gas tax holidays. There is no mechanism to ensure that these "savings" are passed on to consumers, but there is a virtual guarantee of disrupting transportation dollars and the HTF. While it sounds like an enticing solution when pocketbooks are strained, Congress knows that a variety of factors, including plain supply and demand, affect the prices that people see at fuel stations. Now is the time to build on the momentum of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law which, for the first time in decades, takes significant steps to revitalize our nation's aging infrastructure, improve public safety, strengthen our economy, and deliver well-paying jobs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Repair Cost Exceeding Actual Cash Value Does Not Establish “Total Loss” Under Fire Insurance Policy

    June 05, 2017 —
    In California FAIR Plan Assn. v. Garnes (No. A143190, filed 5/26/17), a California appeals court ruled that “total loss” under Insurance Code section 2051 refers to physical damage or loss, not the economic fact that the cost of repair exceeds the actual cash value of a home. Thus, where the home is not physically destroyed, the insured is entitled to the actual cost of repair, minus depreciation, even if that amount exceeds the fair market value of the home. In Garnes, the insured had a fire policy issued by the California FAIR Plan with limits of $425,000. It was agreed that the assessed value of the insured home was only $75,000. The insured suffered a kitchen fire with estimated repair costs of $320,000. The FAIR Plan declared the home a total loss because the cost of repair exceeded the home’s value, and offered to pay the actual cash value as provided by Insurance Code section 2051(b)(1). Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of