BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractor
    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


    Massachusetts Federal Court Holds No Coverage for Mold and Water Damage Claim

    Insurer Rejecting Construction Defect Claim Must Share in Defense Costs

    Avoid Five Common Fraudulent Schemes Used in Construction

    Jet Crash Blamed on Runway Construction Defect

    Snooze You Lose? Enforcement of Notice and Timing Provisions

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    General Contractors: Consider Importance of "Primary Noncontributory" Language

    Two Texas Cities Top San Francisco for Property Investors

    A Court-Side Seat: Guam’s CERCLA Claim Allowed, a “Roundup” Verdict Upheld, and Judicial Process Privilege Lost

    4 Lessons Contractors Can Learn From The COVID-19 Crisis

    Traub Lieberman Partner Rina Clemens Selected as a 2023 Florida Super Lawyers® Rising Star

    Planned Everglades Reservoir at Center of Spat Between Fla.'s Gov.-Elect, Water Management District

    Congratulations to Nicholas Rodriguez on His Promotion to Partner

    California Supreme Court Finds Vertical Exhaustion Applies to First-Level Excess Policies

    What Does “Mold Resistant” Really Mean?

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect, Bad Faith Claims

    Contractor Walks Off Job. What are the Owner’s Damages?

    California Federal Court Finds a Breach of Contract Exclusion in a CGL Policy Bars All Coverage for a Construction Defect Action

    Dusseldorf Evacuates About 4,000 as World War II Bomb Defused

    Michigan: Identifying and Exploiting the "Queen Exception" to No-Fault Subrogation

    Glendale City Council Approves Tohono O’odham Nation Casino

    No Duty to Defend under Homeowner's Policy Where No Occurrence, No Property Damage

    Revel Closing Shows Gambling Is No Sure Thing for Renewal

    Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects

    Tech Focus: Water Tech Getting Smarter

    New EPA Regulation for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

    Builders Arrested after Building Collapses in India

    Third Circuit Vacates Judgment for Insurer on Alleged Construction Defect Claim

    Delaware Supreme Court Choice of Law Ruling Vacates a $13.7 Million Verdict Against Travelers

    2019 California Construction Law Update

    US Homes Face Costly Retrofits for Induction Stoves, EV Chargers

    San Diego Appellate Team Prevails in Premises Liability Appeal

    The Rubber Hits the Ramp: A Maryland Personal Injury Case

    Collapse of Improperly Built Deck Not An Occurrence

    Mortgage Battle Flares as U.K. Homebuying Loses Allure

    Michigan Court of Appeals Remands Construction Defect Case

    Construction Defect Claims Not Covered

    The Importance of Retrofitting Existing Construction to Meet Sustainability Standards

    Substituting Materials and Failure to Comply with Contractual Requirements

    Court Addresses When Duty to Defend Ends

    Daily Reports – The Swiss Army Knife of Project Documentation

    Consequential Damages From Subcontractor's Faulty Work Constitutes "Property Damage" and An "Occurrence"

    Changes in the Law on Lien Waivers

    Bank Window Lawsuit Settles Quietly

    Top 10 Take-Aways from the 2024 Fall Forum Meeting in Pittsburgh

    Keep It Simple: Summarize (Voluminous Evidence, That Is...)

    Condos Down in Denver Due to Construction Defect Litigation

    Homeowner Sues Brick Manufacturer for Spalling Bricks

    Superintendent’s On-Site Supervision Compensable as Labor Under Miller Act

    Construction Defects could become Issue in Governor’s Race
    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

    NAHB Reports on U.S. Jobs Created from Home Building

    May 05, 2014 —
    The National Association of Home Builders’ Eye on Housing reported that for every “average single-family home” built in the U.S., almost three full-time jobs are created. “A substantial share of this is employment for construction workers,” according to the NAHB article. “But also included is employment in firms that manufacture building products, transport and sell products, and provide professional services to home builders and buyers (e.g., architects and real estate agents).” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Massachusetts Business Court Addresses Defense Cost Allocation and Non-Cumulation Provisions in Long-Tail Context

    March 06, 2022 —
    A business court in Massachusetts has weighed in on two key issues affecting allocation of insurance coverage for long-tail liabilities in Massachusetts. Specifically, in Crosby Valve LLC et al. v. OneBeacon America Insurance Company, et al.,[1] involving asbestos bodily injury claims, Judge Kenneth Salinger of the Suffolk County Business Litigation Session addressed:
    • whether defense costs in long-tail cases were subject to the same pro rata allocation scheme the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) adopted to govern successively triggered insurers' indemnity obligations in Boston Gas Company v. Century Indemnity Company;[2] and
    • whether “non-cumulation” provisions, like those addressed by the New York Court of Appeals in Matter of Viking Pump,[3] were consistent with this pro rata allocation methodology.
    As to the first issue — i.e., allocation of defense costs — Judge Salinger declined to follow Boston Gas, and found the SJC’s holding in that case was limited to an insurers’ indemnity obligations. The SJC in Boston Gas had focused on the language of the policy insuring agreement, saying “[t]his policy applies to ... property damage ... which occurs anywhere during the policy period.” The SJC had also pointed to the policy definition of “occurrence” as “an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results, during the policy period, in property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.”[4] Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams LLP 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

    Insurer in Bad Faith For Refusing to Commit to Appraisal

    October 08, 2014 —
    The court denied State Farm's motion for summary judgment on the insured homeowners' bad faith claim for State Farm's failure to agree to an appraisal. Currie v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2014 WL 4081051 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2014). Superstorm Sandy caused a tree to crash in the insureds' home. The loss was reported to State Farm. The State Farm adjuster verbally quoted the roof replacement at more than $100,000. State Farm eventually paid $60,000 for the roof replacement. The insureds' adjuster estimated the loss at $363,804.98. The insureds demanded an appraisal. State Farm rejected the demand because the claim involved certain items for which State Farm did not admit liability, including damage to the interior hardwood floors. State Farm contended that since the dispute went beyond the amount of loss, an appraisal was not an appropriate method of resolution. 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

    Oregon Condo Owners Make Construction Defect Claim

    January 13, 2014 —
    Residents of two condominiums in Florence, Oregon have filed suits alleging that construction defects have led to water intrusion and damage. The two condominium projects were built by separate developers. Each association has brought its own lawsuit, according to an article in the Register-Guard. The Bridgeport Landing condominium owners have sued CJ Cable LLC for $2.5 million. Cindy Cable said of lawsuit, “I’ve done everything I could do to get this resolved, and I still get sued.” She said that “the only way to get it corrected is with a lawsuit.” Meanwhile, residents of the Stillwater Condominiums have sued Thomas Hornback Construction for $2.1 million. Hornback is reported to have denied the allegations made by the Stillwater owners, but says that any problems would be due to subcontractors or failure of the owners to maintain the buildings. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Study Finds Mansion Tax Reduced Sales in New York and New Jersey

    May 13, 2014 —
    A study by two Columbia University economists demonstrated that “the extra 1% ‘mansion’ tax New York state and New Jersey impose on home sales above $1 million actually reduce[d] the number of total real estate transactions, in addition” it pushed “home sales that might have taken place for above $1 million to below that threshold,” Forbes reported. The “mansion” tax only occurs when the residential sale is above $1 million, “meaning a buyer who pays $999,999 for a house, condo or coop would owe no mansion tax.” The study showed a “dramatic” gap “in sales of homes for between $1 million and $1,040,000 (with more sales missing in that range than bunched just below $1 million).” The economists’ concluded that “the mansion tax causes an ‘unraveling’ effect, actually disrupting some sales of properties that would otherwise have taken place.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Chimney Collapses at South African Utility’s Unfinished $13 Billion Power Plant

    November 21, 2022 —
    South Africa’s newest coal-fired power plant, which has been under construction since 2008 and will cost an estimated 232 billion rand ($12.7 billion), shut one of its six generating units after a duct collapsed. The unit at the Kusile plant could remain offline “for a few months” although a clearer estimate will be known over coming weeks, state-owned utility Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd. said in a statement late Wednesday. The outage comes as the country endures record blackouts -- locally known as loadshedding. The duct appeared to have sheared off from the unit’s main structure, a photo posted on Twitter by Anton Eberhard, a professor at the University of Cape Town’s Graduate School of Business, showed.  Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Paul Burkhardt, Bloomberg

    Sources of Insurance Recovery for Emerging PFAS Claims

    December 17, 2024 —
    This year, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued its first-ever national, legally enforceable drinking water standard to protect communities from exposure to harmful per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), also known as “forever chemicals.”[1] In addition, the Food and Drug Administration announced that grease-proofing materials containing PFAS are no longer being sold for use in food packaging in the United States.[2] These are likely the first in a line of many PFAS regulations that will emerge as the harmful effects of PFAS are further understood. With this increasing regulatory focus on PFAS and their harmful effects, companies whose operations might involve these substances should be aware of what they are and potential sources of recovery for claims that arise from their omnipresence. PFAS Background According to the EPA, PFAS are widely used, long-lasting chemicals which break down slowly over time.[3] PFAS can be found in thousands of items, including, but not limited to: pots and pans, cleaning products, fabric and leather coatings, firefighting foam, carpeting, roofing materials, paints, sealants, caulks, and adhesives.[4] Additionally, manufacturing processes, waste storage, and treatment sites commonly release PFAS into the air, soil, and water.[5] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jasjeet K. Sahani, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Sahani may be contacted at JSahani@sdvlaw.com

    Revisiting Statutory Offers to Compromise

    August 28, 2023 —
    The fourth appellate district published an opinion earlier this year in Smalley v. Subaru of America, Inc. (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 450 that serves as an excellent refresher on requirements of the “998 Offer,” or a statutory offer to compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §998. In Smalley, set in the context of a Lemon Law action, Defendant Subaru made a 998 Offer for $35,001.00, together with attorneys’ fees and costs totaling either $10,000.00 or costs and reasonably incurred attorneys’ fees, in an amount to be determined by the Court. (Smalley, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at 454.) Plaintiff objected that the offer was not reasonable and the case proceeded to trial. At trial, a jury found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded him a total judgment award of $27,555.74 – far short of the $35,001.00 offer. The trial court found Plaintiff had failed to beat the 998 at trial and that Subaru’s earlier 998 offer was reasonable. Plaintiff appealed the post-judgment order awarding Plaintiff pre-offer costs and Defendant post-offer costs on the grounds that the 998 was not reasonable in that it did not specify whether Plaintiff would be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of a motion for attorneys’ fees. The fourth district affirmed the trial court’s order and engaged in a helpful review of 998 requirements. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kathryne Baldwin, Wilke Fleury
    Ms. Baldwin may be contacted at kbaldwin@wilkefleury.com