BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut reconstruction 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


    Foreclosure Deficiency: Construction Loan vs. Home Improvement Loan

    First Quarter Gains in Housing Affordability

    Orlando Commercial Construction Permits Double in Value

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (03/08/23) – Updates on U.S. Mortgage Applications, the Inflation Reduction Act, and Multifamily Sector

    Alabama Limits Duty to Defend for Construction Defects

    Court Exclaims “Enough!” To Homeowner Who Kept Raising Wrongful Foreclosure Claims

    Century Communities Acquires Dunhill Homes Las Vegas Operations

    New OSHA Regulations on Confined Spaces in Construction

    How to Remove a Mechanics Lien from Your Property

    California Court Holds No Coverage Under Pollution Policy for Structural Improvements

    How AI and Machine Learning Are Helping Construction Reduce Risk and Improve Margins

    Compliance with Contractual and Jurisdictional Pre-Suit Requirements is Essential to Maximizing Recovery

    Note on First-Party and Third-Party Spoliation of Evidence Claims

    The Advantages of Virtual Reality in Construction

    Changes to Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act in New York Introduced

    Last Parcel of Rancho del Oro Masterplan Purchased by Cornerstone Communties

    Just a House That Uses 90 Percent Less Energy Than Yours, That's All

    Navigating Construction Contracts in the Energy Sector – Insights from Sheppard Mullin’s Webinar Series

    Construction Insurance Costs for New York Schools is Going Up

    Musk’s Cousins Battle Utilities to Make Solar Rooftops Cheap

    Burlingame Construction Defect Case Heading to Trial

    California Court of Appeal Holds a Tenant Owes No Duty to Protect a Social Guest From a Defective Sidewalk Leading to a Condominium Unit

    Build Back Better Includes Historic Expansion of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program

    Draft Federal Legislation Reinforces Advice to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses

    US Court Disputes $1.8B AECOM Damage Award in ‘Remarkable Fraud’ Suit

    GOP, States, Industry Challenge EPA Project Water Impact Rule

    Energy Company Covered for Business Interruption Losses Caused by Fire and Resulting in Town-Ordered Shutdown

    More Construction Defects for San Francisco’s Eastern Bay Bridge Expansion

    New Jersey Rules that Forensic Lab Analysts Can’t be Forced to Testify

    Contractor Gets Green Light to Fix Two Fractured Girders at Salesforce Transit Center

    A Networked World of Buildings

    Policy Reformed to Add New Building Owner as Additional Insured

    A DC Office Building Offers a Lesson in Glass and Sculpture

    One-Upmanship by Contractors In Prevailing Wage Decision Leads to a Bad Result for All . . . Perhaps

    Ten Years After Colorado’s Adverse Possession Amendment: a brief look backwards and forwards

    Insurers' Communications Through Brokers Not Privileged

    Wendel Rosen Construction Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers

    Expert's Opinions On Causation Leads Way To Summary Judgment For Insurer

    Manhattan’s Property Boom Pushes Landlords to Sell Early

    Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

    The Future for Tall Buildings Could Be Greener

    NEHRP Recommendations Likely To Improve Seismic Design

    White House’s New Draft Guidance Limiting NEPA Review of Greenhouse Gas Impacts Is Not So New or Limiting

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

    Work to Solve the Mental Health Crisis in Construction

    Sometimes, Being too Cute with Pleading Allegations is Unnecessary

    Connecticut Federal District Court Again Finds "Collapse" Provisions Ambiguous

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

    Putting 3D First, a Model Bridge Rises in Norway

    Pre-Judgment Interest Not Awarded Under Flood Policy
    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

    Nebraska Court Ruling Backs Latest Keystone XL Pipeline Route

    September 30, 2019 —
    Advocates of the Keystone XL oil pipeline have won a victory in their long effort to construct the project, as the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld a state commission's 2017 finding that supported the project's latest route alignment through the state. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

    Insurers in New Jersey Secure a Victory on Water Damage Claims, But How Big a Victory Likely Remains to be Seen

    April 03, 2019 —
    Property insurance policies commonly cover water damage caused by an accidental discharge or leakage of water from an on-site plumbing system and commonly exclude water damage caused by a sewer backup. So it’s not surprising that the cause of water damage is a common battleground between policyholders and insurers. In Salil v. Ohio Security Insurance Co., 2018 WL 6272930 (N.J. App. Div. Dec. 3, 2018), insurers scored a victory when the court held that the release of water and sewage into a restaurant was subject to a $25,000 sublimit for water damage caused by a sewer backup. But claims adjusters and policyholders confronted with water damage claims in New Jersey will no doubt continue to do battle over whether the Salil decision was a decisive victory for insurers or a limited one. In Salil, the insured landlord leased its building to a restaurant operator. After the insured’s tenant reported water and odor at the restaurant, the insured contacted a plumber, who informed the insured that a clog in the restaurant’s toilet caused Category 3 water to flow into the restaurant. The insured allegedly sustained approximately $160,000 in restoration costs and loss of business income. The plumber used a snake to clear the sewer line to remedy the issue. The restoration company confirmed the cause of the loss was a sewer back up. On this basis, the insurer determined that the cause of loss was a sewer backup. The policy excluded coverage for water damage caused by a sewer back-up, but an endorsement restored that coverage, subject to a $25,000 sub-limit for “direct physical loss or damaged caused by water… which backs up into a building or structure through sewers or drains which are directly connected to a sanitary sewer or septic system.” Pursuant to this endorsement, the insurer paid its $25,000 sublimit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com

    Breach of Contract Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect Claim

    March 19, 2024 —
    The court determined the policy's breach of contract exclusion precluded coverage for a claim against the general contractor insured for construction defects. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. McAtamncy, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 497 (N. D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2024). McAtamney, a general contractor dong business as Kilrea Construction, was hired by Jeffrey Horowitz for a home-renovation project. After completion of the project, Horowitz discovered defects in the work. He filed a complaint alleging that Kilrea breached obligations to construct and complete the work in an expeditious and workmanlike manner, free from any faults and defects. He brought claims for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, negligence, neglignet supervision, and declaratory relief. Kilrea's insurer, Mt. Hawley, agreed to defend, but reserved the right to later deny coverage for any uncovered claims. The breach of contract exclusion provided there was no duty to defend a claim for property damage arising from breach of an express or implied contract or warranty. 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

    Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York

    March 09, 2020 —
    Insurance policies typically impose, on the insured, a duty to cooperate with the insurer during investigation and litigation of a claim. Non-cooperation can be grounds for denying coverage. This begs the question: what constitutes non-cooperation? Recently, a New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision that failure by an employee of the insured to show up for three court-ordered depositions did not rise to the level of “willful and avowed obstruction” and therefore, the insurer could not deny coverage on the basis of non-cooperation. See Foddrell v. Utica First Insurance Co., 178 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). In so holding, the Foddrell court applied the Thrasher test: “To effectively deny coverage based upon lack of cooperation, an insurance carrier must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insured were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his or her cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction.” Id.; see Thrasher v. U. S. Liab. Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.2d 159, 167 (1967). Thomas Foddrell’s suit against Utica First Insurance Company (“Utica First”) stemmed from his personal injury suit against Janey & Rana Construction Corporation (“J&R” (Utica First’s insured). During that lawsuit, J&R’s principal, Gardeep Singh, failed to appear for two court-ordered depositions. After his failure to appear at those depositions, Utica First sent an investigator to inform Singh that he was scheduled for a third deposition. Singh responded to the investigator that he would speak with J&R’s attorneys about the matter. Ultimately, Singh did not appear for the third court-ordered deposition. In response to Singh’s repeated failure to appear for the depositions, Utica First sent Singh a letter advising him that because of his lack of cooperation, Utica would no longer agree to indemnify J&R. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan G. Nelson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Mr. Nelson may be contacted at rgn@sdvlaw.com

    COVID-19 Case Remanded for Failure to Meet Amount in Controversy

    September 14, 2020 —
    The federal district court remanded to state court a loss of rent claim because the amount in controversy requirement was not met. Geragos & Geragos Fine Arts Bldg., LLC v. Travelers Indemn. Co., 2020 U.S Dist. LEXIS 127427 (C.D. Cal. July 20, 2020). Geragos suffered loss of rental income due to the COVID-19 tenant relief measures implemented in Los Angeles. The tenant relief orders would remain in effect for the duration of the emergency period, the end date of which was not presently set. Geragos submitted a claim for loss of rental income to Travelers. When the claim was denied, Geragos sued in state court. Travelers removed to federal district court. Geragos moved to remand the case back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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

    Fourth Circuit Finds Insurer Reservation of Rights Letters Inadequate to Preserve Coverage Defenses Under South Carolina Law

    January 17, 2023 —
    In Stoneledge at Lake Keowee Owners Ass'n v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34292 (D.S.C. Dec. 13, 2022), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the adequacy of reservation of rights letters issued by Builders Mutual Insurance Company (“Builders Mutual”) and Cincinnati Insurance Company (“Cincinnati”) to their insureds, Marick Home Builders, LLC (“Marick”) and Rick Thoennes (“Thoennes”), Marick’s managing member, for an underlying construction defect lawsuit. In short, the Fourth Circuit found that the reservation letters were inadequate to preserve the insurers’ coverage defenses because they did not sufficiently explain the basis of the carriers’ position.  Stoneledge, a homeowners association, managed a community of 80 townhomes on South Carolina’s Lake Keowee. In 2009, Stoneledge brought suit against Marick and Thoennes, among other defendants, alleging construction defects in the townhomes that resulted in water intrusion and other physical damage. Marick and Thoennes held commercial general-liability policies through Cincinnati and Builders Mutual covering, in relevant part, “property damage” as defined by the policies. Builders Mutual issued policies covering the period from January 2004 to October 2007, and Cincinnati issued policies covering the period from April 2008 to April 2012. After Marick notified the insurers of the underlying action, Builders Mutual sent Marick two reservation of rights letters, one in May 2009 and one in July 2009. Cincinnati sent Marick one reservation of rights letter in March 2010. In March 2014, Stoneledge brought a declaratory-judgment action against Cincinnati seeking coverage for a judgment entered in the underlying action. The insurers removed the case to federal court, and in September 2016, Stoneledge amended its complaint, adding Builders Mutual as a defendant and seeking coverage for additional damages pursuant to a settlement agreement entered into by Stoneledge, Marick, Thoennes. The district court granted Stoneledge's motion for  summary judgment, primarily on the ground that the insurers failed to reserve the right to contest coverage. The insurers appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

    Patagonia Will Start Paying for Homeowners' Solar Panels

    October 15, 2014 —
    Patagonia plans to use state and federal tax credits to invest $13 million in the construction of solar panels on 1,000 homes in Hawaii, turning the eco-conscious retailer into the financial backer of a green electrical utility. With the announcement on Wednesday, Patagonia hopes companies across America will follow suit with similar efforts. “Any U.S. public or private company who pays their fair share of taxes can use this strategy to speed up the development of new energy infrastructure,” Rose Marcario, Patagonia’s chief executive, said in an interview. “And they can make money doing it and create jobs.” Patagonia is joining forces with a tiny solar-financing company, Kina’ole Capital Partners, as well as a local Hawaiian bank to create a $27 million fund to pay for rooftop installation and upkeep. Starting in Hawaii makes sense because of its abundant sunshine and sky-high electrical rates; Hawaiians currently pay three times the U.S. average for electricity. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Caroline Winter, Bloomberg Businessweek
    Ms. Winter may be contacted at cwinter10@bloomberg.net

    Lake Texoma, Texas Condo Case may go to Trial

    February 05, 2014 —
    A lawsuit that’s created a “four-year legal battle” over alleged construction defects at the Diamond Pointe Condominium Tower in Lake Texoma, Texas may soon be going to trial, according to KTEN News. A lawyer representing the Diamond Pointe condominiums stated that “he has 15 witnesses lined up for a two-week trial.” KTEN News reported that according to court papers, “the Association alleges issues with the elevator, doors not opening properly, cracks, water leaks, and septic containment system leaks over the past decade.” Furthermore, the Association president Dan Baucum said to KTEN, “There were some foundation repairs that we needed to do and there are some problems with the building. It was not built to the specifications, at least that's what we're alleging, and that has allowed some water seepage in certain areas.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of