BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projects
    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


    McDermott International and BP Team Arbitrate $535M LNG Site Dispute

    Edward Beitz and William Taylor Recognized by US News – Best Lawyers as a "Lawyer of the Year"

    San Diego: Compromise Reached in Fee Increases for Affordable Housing

    Is a Text a Writing?

    Navigating the Hurdles of Florida Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Public Law Center Honors Snell & Wilmer Partner Sean M. Sherlock As Volunteers For Justice Attorney Of The Year

    Catching Killer Clauses in Contract Negotiations

    Portions of Policyholder's Expert's Opinions Excluded

    There Was No Housing Bubble in 2008 and There Isn’t One Now

    10 Haight Lawyers Recognized in Best Lawyers in America© 2023 and The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2023

    AGC Seeks To Lead Industry in Push for Infrastructure Bill

    Tests Find Pollution From N.C. Coal Ash Site Hit by Florence Within Acceptable Levels

    High Court Could Alter Point-Source Discharge Definition in Taking Clean-Water Case

    Where Standing, Mechanic’s Liens, and Bankruptcy Collide

    The Benefits of Incorporating AI Into the Construction Lifecycle

    MGM Begins Dismantling of the Las Vegas Harmon Tower

    Nuclear Fusion Pushes to Reach Commercial Power Plant Stage

    SCOTUS, Having Received Views of Solicitor General, Will Decide Whether CWA Regulates Indirect Discharge of Pollutants Into Navigable Water Via Groundwater

    Maintenance Issues Ignite Arguments at Indiana School

    Quick Note: Aim to Avoid a Stay to your Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Useful Life: A Valuable Theory for Reducing Damages

    Virginia Chinese Drywall and pollution exclusion

    Ten Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    SunEdison Gets Shinsei Bank Funding for Japan Solar Power Plant

    He Turned Wall Street Offices Into Homes. Now He Vows to Remake New York

    Construction Insurance Costs for New York Schools is Going Up

    Texas Supreme Court Authorizes Exception to the "Eight-Corners" Rule

    Housing Starts Rebound in U.S. as Inflation Eases: Economy

    Construction Contract Basics: No Damages for Delay

    Five Facts About Housing That Will Make People In New York City and San Francisco Depressed

    Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property

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

    New Report Reveals Heavy Civil Construction Less Impacted by COVID-19 Than Commercial Construction

    New York Construction Practice Team Obtains Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Labor Law Claims

    No Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Under Hawaii Law, but All is not Lost for Insured Contractor

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    Utility Contractor Held Responsible for Damaged Underground Electrical Line

    What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

    Coverage Doomed for Failing Obtain Insurer's Consent for Settlement

    Builder Pipeline in U.S. at Eight-Year High: Under the Hood

    Making the World’s Longest Undersea Railway Tunnel Possible with BIM

    Settlement Reached in California Animal Shelter Construction Defect Case

    Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s

    Determining Occurrence for Injury Under Commercial General Liability Policy Without Applying “Trigger Theory”

    Philadelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program

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

    General Contractor’s Intentionally False Certifications Bar It From Any Recovery From Owner

    Blog: Congress Strikes a Blow to President Obama’s “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” Executive Order 13673

    How Mansions Can Intensify Wildfires

    ASCE Statement on National Dam Safety Awareness Day - May 31
    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

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Bars Coverage for Pool Damage

    February 23, 2016 —
    Relying upon the policy's anti-concurrent causation clause, the Illinois Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that there was no coverage for a pool that popped out of the ground. Bozek v. Erie Ins. Group, 2015 Ill. App. LEXIS 940 (Ill. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2015). Following a rainstorm, the insureds reported damage to the swimming pool to Erie. An investigation determined that the heavy rain saturated soils around the pool. This created a significant uplift hydrostatic pressure. The weight of the water in the pool typically prevented the uplift forces, but the pool had been emptied to clean debris making it susceptible to uplift. The pool had a pressure relief valve to prevent uplift, but it was not working properly. As a result, the pool was damaged to the point that it had to be replaced in its entirety. The heaving of the pool also damaged the concrete slab around the pool, which also had to be replaced. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Fluor Agrees to $14.5M Fixed-Price Project Cost Pact with SEC

    September 25, 2023 —
    Fluor Corp. has agreed to pay $14.5 million to resolve a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation for alleged “improper accounting” and "overly optimistic" cost and timing estimates in bidding two legacy fixed-price projects that forced the company to restate its 2020 financial results, the agency said on Sept. 6. Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Supreme Court Adopts Vertical Exhaustion for Long-Tail Claims

    June 15, 2020 —
    In another round of litigation involving coverage issues between Montrose Chemical Corporation and its insurers, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Montrose, adopting vertical exhaustion of excess policies. Montrose Chem. Corp. of Calif. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 9 Ca. 5th 215 (2020). In 1990, the United States and the State of California sued Montrose for contamination from 1947 to 1982 caused by Montrose's facility manufacturing insecticides. Montrose had primary and excess liability policies from defendant insurers between 1961 and 1985. Forty insurers collectively issued more than 115 excess policies, which collectively provided coverage sufficient to indemnify Montrose's anticipate total liability. Primary coverage was exhausted. Each excess policy provided that Montrose had to exhaust the limits of its underlying coverage before there would be excess coverage. Which excess carrier could be called on first was the issued before the California Supreme Court. Montrose proposed a rule of "vertical exhaustion" or "elective stacking," whereby it could access any excess policy once it exhausted other policies with lower attachment points in the same policy period. The insurers, in contract, argued for "horizontal exhaustion," whereby Montrose could access an excess policy only after it exhausted other policies with lower attachment points from every policy period in which the environmental damage resulting in liability occurred. 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

    Subcontractor Strength Will Drive Industry’s Ability to Meet Demand, Overcome Challenges

    October 10, 2022 —
    Owners, developers and general contractors get a lot of notoriety for construction projects, especially in these infrastructure-focused times. However, the subcontractor is truly the one under the microscope, as this group requires the most care and attention to ensure the owners and operators are able to meet accelerating demand and public expectations. The challenges in the current environment are many. Inflation and supply chain disruptions are highly detrimental to specialty trades in the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, drywall and other areas. Reports show that the construction industry, in particular, has seen an increase of over 20% in the cost of supplies and building materials in the last year alone and, in some cases, over 90% since the start of the pandemic. While these costs are passed along to the owner, the subcontractor still retains significant cash flow risk. This truth is amplified in a volatile market. As if the cost was not enough, equipment and material shortages coupled with rising interest rates only compound the problem—and tenfold for small businesses. Subcontractors are likely to feel the greatest pressure from supply-related issues. Inflation combined with supply chain shortages require subcontractors to prepare earlier for projects and, when possible, purchase materials upfront. However, the consequence of this preliminary preparation equates to further strains on cash flow. In an effort to remain aligned on schedules and budgets, subcontractors frequently buy all of a project’s materials as soon as a contract is signed—if not before. Reprinted courtesy of Anwar Ghauche, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Wisconsin High Court Rejects Insurer’s Misuse of “Other Insurance” Provision

    March 04, 2019 —
    The Wisconsin Supreme Court held last week in Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Greenwich Ins. Co. that two insurers must contribute proportionally to the defense of an additional insured under their comprehensive liability policies. In 2008, torrential rainstorms battered the Milwaukee area for two days. The downpour overwhelmed the city’s sewer system, causing significant flooding in homes throughout the region. Out of those floods sprang several lawsuits against the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (“MMSD”) for negligent inspection, maintenance, repair, and operation of Milwaukee’s sewage system. MMSD was an additional insured under liability policies covering two other water service providers responsible for the city’s sewer systems. The first policy was issued by Greenwich Insurance Company for United Water Services Milwaukee, LLC, and the second was issued by Steadfast Insurance Company for Veolia Water Milwaukee, LLC. After learning of the lawsuits, MMSD tendered its defense of the sewage suits to both insurers. Steadfast accepted the defense; but Greenwich refused, claiming that its policy was excess to Steadfast’s based on an “other insurance” clause in Greenwich’s policy. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and David Costello, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Costello may be contacted at dcostello@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Design and Construction Defects Not a Breach of Contract

    February 14, 2013 —
    The California Court of Appeals tossed out a breach of contract award in Altman v. John Mourier Construction. The decision, which was issued on January 10, 2013, sent the construction defect case back to a lower court to calculate damages based on the conclusions of the appeals court. The case involved both design issues and construction issues. According to the plaintiffs’ expert, the design plans did not make the buildings sufficiently stiff to resist the wind, and that the framing was improperly constructed, further weakening the structures, and leading to the stucco cracking. Additionally, it was alleged that the roofs were improperly installed, leading to water intrusion. The contractor’s expert “agreed the roofs needed repair, but disputed what needed to be done to repair the roofs and the cost.” The jury rejected the plaintiffs’ claims of product liability and breach of warranty, but found in their favor on the claims of breach of contract and negligence. The plaintiffs were awarded differing amounts based on the jury’s conclusions about their particular properties. Both sides sought new trials. JMC, the contractor, claimed that the jury’s verdicts were “inconsistent in that the relieved JMC of liability for strict products liability and breach of warranty, but found JMC liable for breach of contract and negligence.” The plaintiffs “opposed the setoff motion on the ground that the jury heard evidence only of damages not covered by the settlements.” Both motions were denied. After this, the plaintiffs sought and received investigative costs as damages. JMC appealed this amended judgment. The appeals court rejected JMC’s claims that evidence was improperly excluded. JMC sought to introduce evidence concerning errors made by the stucco subcontractor. Earlier in the trial, JMC had insisted that the plaintiffs not be allowed to present evidence concerning the stucco, as that had been separately settled. When they wished to introduce it themselves, they noted that the settlement only precluded the plaintiffs from introducing stucco evidence, but the trial court did not find this persuasive, and the appeals court upheld the actions of the trial court. Nor did the appeals court find grounds for reversal based on claims that the jury saw excluded evidence, as JMC did not establish that the evidence went into the jury room. Further, this did not reach, according to the court, a “miscarriage of justice.” The court rejected two more of JMC’s arguments, concluding that the negligence award did not violate the economic loss rule. The court also noted that JMC failed to prove its contention that the plaintiffs were awarded damages for items that were covered in settlements with the subcontractors. The appeals court did accept JMC’s argument that the award for breach of contract was not supported by evidence. As the ruling notes, “plaintiffs did not submit the contracts into evidence or justify their absence; nor did plaintiffs provide any evidence regarding contract terms allegedly breached.” The court also did not allow the plaintiffs to claim the full amount of the investigative costs. Noting that the trial court had rational grounds for its decision, the appeals court noted that “the jury rejected most of the damages claimed by plaintiffs, and the trial court found that more than $86,000 of the costs itemized in plaintiffs’ invoices ‘appear questionable’ as ‘investigation’ costs/damages and appeared to the trial court to be litigation costs nonrecoverable under section 1033.5.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractor Sues Golden Gate Bridge District Over Suicide Net Project

    December 18, 2022 —
    The project to install a suicide-deterrence net and perform other upgrades on the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco now is expected to complete five years late and cost more than double the original contract price, its contractors say. The joint venture leading the project filed a breach-of-contract complaint against the agency that manages the bridge seeking $195 million in damages, while the agency counters that delays were caused by changes in the contractor’s ownership. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Homebuilding Still on the Rise

    December 20, 2012 —
    The National Association of Home Builders reports that spending on private homes was up three percent in October 2012, bringing it to a four-year high. This was part of a trend in which fourteen of the last fifteen months have seen increases in spending on residential construction. Likewise, multifamily residences have seen thirteen months of increased spending, putting it 82% higher than its low, two years ago. In addition to new homes, remodeling is also up, reaching its highest point in five years. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of