BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultant
    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


    California Court of Appeal Adopts Horizontal Exhaustion Rule

    Want a Fair Chance at a Government Contract? Think Again

    Deadlines. . . They’re Important. Project Owner Risks Losing Claim By Failing to Timely Identify “Doe” Defendant

    Wisconsin “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

    What Types of “Damages Claims” Survive a Trustee’s Sale?

    Canada Housing Starts Increase on Multiple-Unit Projects

    Lead Paint: The EPA’s Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule

    More on Fraud, Opinions and Contracts

    Ohio Does Not Permit Retroactive Application of Statute of Repose

    Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    OSHA Announces Expansion of “Severe Violator Enforcement Program”

    The Best Laid Plans: Contingency in a Construction Contract

    Illinois Court Assesses Factual Nature of Term “Reside” in Determining Duty to Defend

    Existence of “Duty” in Negligence Action is Question of Law

    Dealing with Hazardous Substances on the Construction Site

    July 1, 2015 Statutory Changes Affecting Virginia Contractors and Subcontractors

    Water Backup Payment Satisfies Insurer's Obligation to Cover for Rain Damage

    Administrative and Environmental Law Cases Decided During the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term

    A Glimpse Into Post-Judgment Collections and Perhaps the Near Future?

    CGL Coverage for Liquidated Damages and the Contractual Liability Exclusion

    Wilke Fleury Celebrates the Addition of Two New Partners

    No Coverage for Counterclaim Arising from Insured's Faulty Workmanship

    The Comcast Project is Not Likely to Be Shut Down Too Long

    Insurer in Bad Faith For Refusing to Commit to Appraisal

    Return-to-Workplace Checklist: Considerations and Emerging Best Practices for Employers

    Maria Latest Threat to Puerto Rico After $1 Billion Irma Hit

    Construction Spending Drops in March

    Strategic Communication Considerations for Contractors Regarding COVID-19

    California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

    Mortar Insufficient to Insure Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case

    Colombia's $15 Billion Road Plan Bounces Back From Bribe Scandal

    Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses

    Interior Designer Licensure

    An Insurance Policy Isn’t Ambiguous Just Because You Want It to Be

    Europe’s Satellites Could Help Catch the Next Climate Disaster

    Hurricane Harvey Victims Face New Hurdles In Pursuing Coverage

    Architects Should Not Make Initial Decisions on Construction Disputes

    Florida’s Fourth District Appeals Court Clarifies What Actions Satisfy Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Big Data Meets Big Green: Data Centers and Carbon Removal Compete for Zero-Emission Energy

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

    Homeowner Who Wins Case Against Swimming Pool Contractor Gets a Splash of Cold Water When it Comes to Attorneys’ Fees

    SIGAR Report Finds +$15 Billion in “Waste, Fraud and Abuse” in Afghanistan

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

    Texas Court Construes Breach of Contract Exclusion Narrowly in Duty-to-Defend Case

    Subcontract Should Flow Down Delay Caused by Subcontractors

    Bad Faith Jury Verdict Upheld After Insurer's Failure to Settle Within Policy Limits

    What’s in a Name? Trademarks and Construction

    At Long Last, the Colorado Legislature Gets Serious About Construction Defect Reform – In a Constructive Way
    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

    New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal in the Nation

    August 06, 2019 —
    New York has signed the biggest-ever deals for offshore wind power in U.S. history, a key part of the state’s plan to get all of its power from emissions-free sources by 2040. On Thursday, Governor Andrew Cuomo awarded contracts for two projects off Long Island that will total 1,700 megawatts in capacity. Equinor ASA and a joint venture between Denmark’s Orsted A/S and Massachusetts-based Eversource Energy were chosen to build the farms, which will supply enough power to light up a million homes. Cuomo is counting on the wind projects to achieve the most aggressive clean energy goal in the U.S., and signed the state’s 100% renewable energy target into law right after announcing the wind contracts. New York’s ultimate plan is to get enough turbines erected off its shores to generate 9,000 megawatts by 2035. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Will Wade, Chris Martin, & Millicent Dent, Bloomberg

    Massachusetts Federal Court Rejects Adria Towers, Finds Construction Defects Not an “Occurrence”

    July 03, 2022 —
    In an important ruling for insurers, U.S. District Court Judge Patti Saris found that Massachusetts does not follow the position taken in Cypress Point Condo Association v. Adria Towers, LLC, 226 N.J. 403, 418 (2016), i.e., it does not hold that "faulty workmanship claims [should be recognized] as ... an 'occurrence,' thus triggering coverage, 'so long as the allegedly defective work [was] performed by a subcontractor rather than the policyholder itself."[1] Instead, Judge Saris reaffirmed earlier Massachusetts authority holding faulty work is not an "occurrence" for coverage purposes,[2] and found this authority applied whether or not the work in question was subcontracted. In the alternative, Judge Saris found, even if a contractor's faulty work could be deemed an an "occurrence," such work did not constitute covered "property damage," because none of the alleged damage was "outside the scope of the work that Tocci was contractually required to fulfill as general contractor."[3] Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Jobsite Safety, Workforce Shortage Drive Innovation in Machine Automation

    August 07, 2018 —
    From driverless cars and drones, to robots working in operating rooms, manufacturing plants and fast food restaurants, machine automation is making headlines – and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. And when it comes to machine automation, the construction industry is poised to be a hotbed of innovation. Equipment manufacturers and technology providers in the construction industry have the benefit of using the lessons learned from the manufacturing and automotive industries to meet the needs of contractors, project owners and machine operators through more efficient, highly automated equipment. According to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), there are six stages of automation, ranging from zero autonomy to full automation, where a vehicle is capable of performing all driving functions under all conditions. The construction industry is somewhere in the middle of these six stages, with some automation functionality available on some equipment today, but still requiring an operator to remain engaged with the driving task and the environment. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Crozier, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    "Is the Defective Work Covered by Insurance?"

    January 04, 2018 —
    Originally Published by CDJ on March 16, 2017 I have been asked this question quite a bit from owners, in particular: “The contractor committed defective work, but it has insurance. Doesn’t the insurance cover this defective work?” Ugh, NO! There is this misconception that liability insurance, specifically, is the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to defective work. This could not be further from the truth. Don’t get me wrong – liability insurance is important; it is very, very important. However, liability insurance does not cover the risk of an insured’s defective work. Rather, liability insurance is designed to cover the risk of resulting damage: damage resulting from defective work. This is a significant distinction and one that is often overlooked. This is also why anyone encountering defective work should be working with an attorney to maximize insurance coverage or realize that the issue is not covered by insurance. Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates 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

    BWB&O’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted in a Premises Liability Matter

    November 05, 2024 —
    Congratulations to Newport Beach Partner Courtney Serrato and Associate Joseph Real on Prevailing on a Motion for Summary Judgment for their Client! Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging negligence and premises liability against BWB&O’s client, a general contractor of a multi-level construction project. Plaintiff was injured after a fall at the construction project and filed suit against BWB&O’s client and another subcontractor. Plaintiff alleged BWB&O’s client was negligent and was responsible for causing Plaintiff’s fall. BWB&O filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing under the Privette Doctrine and its progeny, it neither owed nor breached any duty to Plaintiff and that no exception to the doctrine applied. Under the Privette Doctrine, when a person or entity hires an independent contractor to provide work or services, and one of the contractor’s employees is injured on the job, the hirer is generally not liable to the employee. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds

    February 18, 2020 —
    The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, recently took a close look at the application of a “controlled insurance program exclusion” (wrap-up exclusion) to additional insureds on a commercial general liability policy. In Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 886 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit examined the interplay of an enrolled party’s additional insured status on an unenrolled party’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy with a wrap-up exclusion. The court applied North Carolina law and found that pursuant to the policy’s own language, the exclusion only applied to the original named insured, not the additional insureds. The case arose out of an injury incurred by an employee of a second-tier subcontractor during the construction of a hospital. On this particular project, the owner maintained a “rolling owner controlled insurance program” (wrap-up insurance program) in which all tiers of contractors were required to enroll, but enrollment was not automatic. The general contractor was enrolled in the owner’s wrap-up policy, but neither the steel manufacturer subcontractor nor its sub-subcontractor, the steel installation company, were enrolled. The underlying plaintiff was injured while he was an employee of the steel installation company, but he did not name his employer in his personal injury lawsuit. The Cont’l Cas. Co. case was instituted by Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) after it defended and settled the underlying plaintiff’s claims against its insured and additional insured, the steel manufacturer and general contractor, respectively. Continental sought to be reimbursed for the $1.7 million settlement and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for the defense and indemnity of the underlying lawsuit. Continental alleged that Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”) breached its duty to defend and Amerisure’s policy provided the primary coverage for both the general contractor and steel manufacturer, who were additional insureds on the Amerisure policy. Amerisure denied a duty to defend the additional insureds based on the presence of the wrap-up exclusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Charlson may be contacted at Ryan.Charlson@csklegal.com

    The Show Must Go On: Navigating Arbitration in the Wake of the COVID-19 Outbreak

    July 20, 2020 —
    The recent COVID-19 outbreak has altered life for all of us, in ways both big and small. Unprecedented restrictions relating to the pandemic have forced individuals across the globe to change the ways in which they live and work. Perhaps not surprisingly, these restrictions have also changed the way we resolve disputes. Just as virtual conferencing has become the “new normal” for family gatherings and social events, it has also become the “new normal” for everything from mediation, to oral argument, to full-blown hearings. To be sure, there are a number of advantages to conducting adversarial proceedings virtually. First and foremost, it results in substantial cost savings for the parties involved. In-person proceedings typically require significant travel expenses, including airline tickets, hotel reservations, and food and beverage stipends. The use of a virtual forum essentially eliminates these expenses, cutting costs dramatically for attorneys, clients, judges, and arbitrators alike. Virtual conferencing also affords the opportunity for increased participation from party representatives living across the country, or even across the world. While demanding work schedules often make it impossible for multiple party representatives to attend a deposition, or even a hearing, in person, virtual proceedings require much less of a time commitment. Because these virtual proceedings require participants to spend less time away from other work-related obligations, party representatives are able to attend proceedings that they may otherwise have had to miss. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Justin K. Fortescue, Zachery B. Roth and Marianne Bradley Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Roth may be contacted at rothz@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Another Case Highlighting the Difference Between CGL Policies and Performance Bonds

    January 07, 2015 —
    During the summer of 2011, Ellis Construction hired Cool Sunshine Heating & Air Conditioning to install the HVAC systems in a single-family home it was building for Gary Doberman and Ellen Robertson in Boulder, Colorado. The homeowners took issue with much of the work performed on their home and tried to negotiate directly with Ellis Construction. When those negotiations broke down, the homeowners sent a notice of claim pursuant to the Construction Defect Action Reform Act, C.R.S. § 13-20-801, et seq. One of the defects alleged in the notice of claim was that the SEERS 13 compressor installed by Cool Sunshine was inappropriate for the system and that because it was installed to run on only one stage, it did not meet the City of Boulder’s code requirements for noise levels. The homeowners therefore requested that the compressor be replaced with a SEERS 20 compressor, which would comply with the Boulder City Code. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com