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


    There’s an Unusual Thing Happening in the Housing Market

    Water Seepage, Ensuing Mold Damage Covered by Homeowner's Policy

    Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution

    No Coverage for Hurricane Sandy Damage

    Who is a “Contractor” as Used in “Unlicensed Contractor”?

    Tariffs, Supply Snarls Spur Search for Factories Closer to U.S.

    Get Construction Defects in Writing

    Flushing Away Liability: What the Aqua Engineering Case Means for Contractors and Subcontractors

    Forum Selection Provisions Are Not to Be Overlooked…Even On Federal Projects

    After Restoring Power in North Carolina, Contractor Faces Many Claims

    Specific Performance: Equitable Remedy to Enforce Affirmative Obligation

    Construction Defect Coverage Summary 2013: The Business Risks Shift To Insurers

    New York Office Secures Appellate Win in Labor Law 240(1) Fall in Basement Accident Case

    Fatal Crane Collapse in Seattle Prompts Questions About Disassembly Procedures

    North Carolina Learns More Lessons From Latest Storm

    2022 Construction Outlook: Continuing Growth But at Slower Pace

    Presidential Executive Order 14008: The Climate Crisis Order

    Virginia Tech Has Its Own Construction Boom

    Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate

    Construction Resumes after Defects

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “The New Empty Chair.”

    Fifth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment Award to Insurer on Hurricane Damage Claim

    Congratulations 2016 DE, NJ, and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Certificates of Merit: Is Your Texas Certificate Sufficient?

    The Future of Construction Tech Is Decision Tech

    Ex-Corps Worker Pleads Guilty to Bribery on Afghan Contract

    New Jersey Imposes New Apprenticeship Training Requirements

    The Colorado Construction Defect Reform Act Explained

    Contractor Sues Supplier over Defective Products

    Time is Money. Unless You’re an Insurance Company

    CSLB’s Military Application Assistance Program

    Texas Construction Firm Officials Sentenced in Contract-Fraud Case

    What Makes a Great Lawyer?

    There's No Such Thing as a Free House

    Office REITs in U.S. Plan the Most Construction in Decade

    Real Protection for Real Estate Assets: Court Ruling Reinforces Importance of D&O Insurance

    Recovering Time and Costs from Hurricane Helene: Force Majeure Solutions for Contractors

    No Coverage Based Upon Your Prior Work Exclusion

    The Importance of the Subcontractor Exception to the “Your Work” Exclusion

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Secured by Lewis Brisbois in Coverage Dispute Involving San Francisco 49ers’ Levi Stadium

    Environmental Regulatory Provisions Embedded in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Earthquake Hits Mid-Atlantic Region; No Immediate Damage Reports

    Chicago’s Bungalows Are Where the City Comes Together

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

    Finding an "Occurrence," Appellate Court Rules Insurer Must Defend

    No Coverage for Foundation Collapse

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Best Lawyers in America ® 2016

    Court Denies Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Collapse Claim

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    Attorneys' Fee Clauses are Engraved Invitations to Sue
    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

    Michigan Court of Appeals Remands Construction Defect Case

    February 14, 2022 —
    After its prior decision holding there was no coverage for faulty workmanship was remanded by the Michigan Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court. Skanska United States Bldg. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contrs., 2021 Mich. App. LEXIS 7336 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2021). The post summarizing the Supreme Court decision is here. Skanska USA Building was the construction manager on a renovation project at a medical center. Skanska subcontracted the heating and cooling portion of the project to defendant M.A.P. MAP held a CGL policy from Amerisure. Skanska and the medical center were named as additional insureds. MAP installed a steam boiler and related piping for the heating system. When completed, the heating system did not function properly. MAP installed some of the expansion joints backwards, causing damage to concrete, steel, and the heating system. 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

    Colorado Springs may be Next Colorado City to Add Construction Defects Ordinance

    October 28, 2015 —
    The Gazette reported that Colorado Springs city councilwoman Jill Gaebler stated that “she would bring a proposal to the council next month that would address the construction defects issue.” Gaebler told The Gazette: “We have gone back and forth with how best to address this issue. It is a statewide concern, so how do we bring forward something that is meaningful to our community without stepping on the toes of our legislators?” The state of Colorado has tried and failed to pass construction defects legislation three years in a row, according to The Gazette. If Colorado Springs adopts an ordinance, it will become the ninth city to pass construction defects laws. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Denver Council Committee Approves Construction Defects Ordinance

    October 28, 2015 —
    According to The Denver Post, the Denver City Council panel advanced a proposed construction defects ordinance proposal 5-0. While “Mayor Michael Hancock and development and business interests…say protections for homeowners have depressed construction” others, such as “homeowner groups[,] have opposed the proposal vocally.” The Denver Post reported that under the ordinance, “a project could not be called defective in a civil action if it was built and maintained in conformance to the building code. Building code violations could be cited in a lawsuit only if they could be linked to actual damage or injury. And it would take the consent of a majority of condo unit owners to initiate a defects lawsuit.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Fair Share Act Does Not Preempt Common Law When Apportioning Liability

    March 09, 2020 —
    On February 19, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a long awaited opinion in the matter of Roverano v. John Crane, Inc., No. 26 EAP 2018, No. 27 EAP 2018 (Pa. 2020). The Court’s opinion is a must-read for anyone involved in asbestos litigation in Pennsylvania. In Roverano, the Court ruled that Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act (42 Pa.C.S. § 7102) does not preempt Pennsylvania common law favoring per capita apportionment of liability to strict liability defendants. In addition, the Court ruled that bankruptcy trusts, that are either joined as third-party defendants or that have entered into a release with the plaintiff, may be included on the verdict sheet for purposes of liability. In this case, Mr. Roverano sued 30 defendants in strict liability and Defendant Crane filed a joinder complaint against Johns-Manville Personal Injury Trust. The case proceeded to trial against eight defendants in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. At trial, some of the defendants filed motions in limine seeking a ruling that the Fair Share Act applied to asbestos cases. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that asbestos exposure cannot be quantified, and held that that it would apportion liability on a per capita basis consistent with the Court’s opinion in Baker v. AC&S, 755 A.2d 664 (Pa. 2000). Reprinted courtesy of Mark T. Caloyer, Lewis Brisbois and Joelle Nelson, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Caloyer may be contacted at Mark.Caloyer@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Nelson may be contacted at Joelle.Nelson@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    U.S. District Court for Hawaii Again Determines Construction Defect Claims Do Not Arise From An Occurrence

    August 27, 2013 —
    In a decision authored by Judge Leslie E. Koybayashi, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii followed its prior decisions that construction defect claims were not covered because such claims do not arise from an occurrence. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. 3 Builders, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88480 (D. Haw. June 24, 2013). 3 Builders, the insured, was sued by the Apartment Owners of Mililani Pinnacle for the faulty installation of a new roof. Pinnacle claimed the completed roofs were not properly installed.complaint alleged breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and other causes of action. 3 Builders tendered the defense to Nautilus, who accepted the tender and defended for three years. Nautilus, however, filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment on its coverage obligations. Nautilus sought summary judgment, contending there was no coverage because all of the claims arose from the contractual relationship to perform the roof work, and a breach of contract was not the type of fortuitous event covered by a CGL policy under Hawaii law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Norristown, PA to Stop Paying Repair Costs for Defect-Ridden Condo

    February 10, 2014 —
    The city of Norristown, Pennsylvania has already paid “$3.4 million for construction repairs and legal expenses” for the 26-unit condominium on 770 Sandy Street, according to The Times Herald. Therefore city officials recently declared that “they will no longer pay the $40,000 annual cost for maintenance, electricity and repairs” for the building. “At some point, the folks that own it have to step up and take responsibility for it,” Norristown Council President William Caldwell told The Times Herald. “No later than February 28, the municipality will cease to provide or pay for maintenance of 770 Sandy Street.” Previously, Norristown had received court orders to repair the building, after numerous construction defects turned up including “missing firestops in numerous walls, missing grout and steel rebar in block-wall, emergency stair towers, faulty electrical wiring and no provision for firestopping in the first-floor garage ceiling.” City officials “were faulted by Montgomery County Common Pleas Court judges for not properly inspecting the construction.” Charles Madracchia, past Customers Bank attorney and current Homeowner attorney, is “continuing active litigation in both federal and state court.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Enforceability of “Pay-If-Paid” Provisions Affirmed in New Jersey

    January 04, 2023 —
    On December 7, 2022, the Appellate Division affirmed the New Jersey Superior Court decision in Jersey Precast v. Tricon Enterprises, Inc. et al., finding that the “pay-if-paid” clause in a material supplier’s purchase order with a general contractor was binding and enforceable. While clauses conditioning a general contractor’s obligation to pay its subcontractors on the general contractor’s receipt of payment from the project owner are not unique – this is the first time that a court in New Jersey has affirmed this practice in a published opinion. [1] Background The general contractor, Tricon, sent Jersey Precast its standard form purchase order for the supply of prestressed box beams to fulfill a public improvement contract with Union County. The reverse side of the form purchase order contained standard terms and conditions, and included a pay-if-paid clause drafted by Michael Zicherman, a partner of Peckar & Abramson, P.C. While Jersey Precast provided some draft revisions to the terms and conditions, Tricon never signed the purchase order and the proposed revisions were never accepted. Significantly, Jersey Precast did not attempt to modify the pay-if-paid provision. It later developed that the construction of the project became impossible, and the beams fabricated by Jersey Precast were not used. Tricon invoiced Union County for the cost of the beams, but the County failed to make payment and refused to accept delivery of the beams. Reprinted courtesy of Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Michael S. Zicherman, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Brian Glicos, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Mr. Zicherman may be contacted at mzicherman@pecklaw.com Mr. Glicos may be contacted at bglicos@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Finds That Split in Underground Storage Tank is Not a Covered Collapse

    July 13, 2017 —
    In Tustin Field Gas & Food v. Mid-Century Ins. Co. (No. B268850, filed 7/3/17), a California appeals court ruled that a split in an underground storage tank, caused by the tank sitting on a rock for years, was not a covered “collapse” as a matter of law. Tustin Field owned a gas station in Palm Springs. The installer of the underground storage tanks did not follow the manufacturer’s instructions to bury them in pea gravel or crushed rock. Instead, the installer just dug a hole, placed the tanks into that hole, and then covered them with “native soil” containing rocks, boulders and other debris. The tanks were double-walled, steel with a fiberglass sheath. Sixteen years after installation, testing revealed that the fiberglass sheath on one tank was no longer intact. The tank was excavated and the fiberglass sheath was found to be cracked from the tank sitting on a nine-inch boulder. The insured paid to have the crack repaired and made a claim for the cost of excavating and repairing the tank. 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