BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction 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


    Actual Cost Value Includes Depreciation of Repair Labor Costs

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage for Contractor's Faulty Workmanship

    General Indemnity Agreement Can Come Back to Bite You

    San Francisco Office Secures Defense Verdict in Legal Malpractice Action

    Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell Recognized in 2024 Best Law Firm® Rankings

    Congratulations to our 2019 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    Contractors Sued for Slip

    Preserving Lien Rights on Private Projects in Washington: Three Common Mistakes to Avoid

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “You Have No Class(ification)”

    Housing Starts in U.S. Little Changed From Stronger January

    Smart Home Products go Mainstream as Consumer Demand Increases

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Less Than Valiant Effort”

    OSHA Set to Tag More Firms as Severe Violators Under New Criteria

    Scientists found a way to make Cement Greener

    Defense Owed to Insured Subcontractor, but not to Additional Insured

    Construction Defect Claims are on the Rise Due to Pandemic-Related Issues

    The G2G Year-End Roundup (2022)

    Netherlands’ Developer Presents Modular Homes for Young Professionals

    Interpreting Insurance Coverage and Exclusions: When Sudden means Sudden and EIFS means Faulty

    Important Environmental Insurance Ruling Issued In Protracted Insurance-Coverage Dispute

    The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    Bad News for Buyers: U.S. Mortgage Rates Hit Highest Since 2014

    Cold Stress Safety and Protection

    4 Ways the PRO Act Would Impact the Construction Industry

    Fee Simple!

    Five-Year Statute of Limitations on Performance-Type Surety Bonds

    Court of Appeals Finds Additional Insured Coverage Despite “Care, Custody or Control” Exclusion

    Watchdog Opens Cartel Probe Into Eight British Homebuilders

    Hawaii Federal District Court Remands Coverage Dispute

    Required Contract Provisions for Construction Contracts in California

    Construction Spending Drops in March

    Homebuilding Down in North Dakota

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 4: Coverage for Supply Chain Related Losses

    Commentary: How to Limit COVID-19 Related Legal Claims

    Three Firm Members Are Top 100 Super Lawyers & Ten Are Recognized As Super Lawyers Or Rising Stars In 2018

    New Jersey Traffic Circle to be Eliminated after 12 Years of Discussion

    Happenings in and around the 2015 West Coast Casualty Seminar

    You Say Tomato, I Say Tomahto. But When it Comes to the CalOSHA Appeals Board, They Can Say it Any Way They Please

    Details Matter: The Importance of Strictly Following Public Bid Statutes

    Insurer's Motion in Limine to Dismiss Case for Lack of Expert Denied

    Settlement Agreement? It Ain’t Over ‘Til it’s . . . Final, in Writing, Fully Executed, and Admissible

    No Coverage for Negligent Misrepresentation without Allegations of “Bodily Injury” or “Property Damage”

    CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 10 CD Topics of 2014

    Failure to Allege Property Damage Within Policy Period Defeats Insured's Claim

    The Future of Construction Work with Mark Ehrlich

    Chambers USA 2020 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Hunton Insurance Practice, Attorneys Recognized in 2024 Edition of The Legal 500 United States

    Less Than Perfectly Drafted Endorsement Bars Flood Coverage

    Changes and Extra Work – Is There a Limit?
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Major Changes in Commercial Construction Since 2009

    December 11, 2013 —
    A new report from Jones Lang LaSalle tracks some of the changes that the commercial building industry has seen since 2009. One important change is that financing has returned. In reviewing the report, Buildings.com notes that “commercial lending conditions are improving.” A less positive change is that construction costs have gone up, with the increase in residential construction pushing prices up in commercial construction. Green construction has gone from a luxury to something owners and developers want. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Addresses When Duty to Defend Ends

    August 24, 2020 —
    There are certain generally held principles regarding an insurer’s duty to defend. One of these principles is that an insurer has a duty to defend its insured if the complaint states a claim that potentially falls within the policy’s coverage. However, there is a lack of consistency regarding the point at which the insurers’ duty to defend ends. When the only potentially covered claim has been dismissed, must the insurer continue to defend? Certain jurisdictions, such as Hawaii and Minnesota, have held that an insurer’s duty to defend continues through an appeals process, or until a final judgment has been entered, disposing of the entire case. Commerce & Industry Insurance Company v. Bank of Hawaii, 832 P.2d 733 (Haw. 1992); Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Insurance Company, 559 N.W. 2d 411 (Minn. 1997). Earlier this week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania took a different approach to this question in Westminster American Insurance Company v. Spruce 1530, No. 19-539, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106534 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 2020) – holding that the trial court’s dismissal of the only potentially covered claim was sufficient to terminate Westminster’s duty to defend. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Margo E. Meta, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Meta may be contacted at metam@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    I-35W Bridge Collapse may be Due to “Inadequate Load Capacity”

    January 22, 2014 —
    The Crookston Times reports that the I-35W Bridge collapse that occurred five years ago in Minneapolis, Minnesota, killing 13 people and injuring another 145, may have been caused by “inadequate load capacity.” The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report stated that it is “a simple design flaw in metal plates that help connect one steel beam to another.” Due to the findings, “the NTSB set new safety recommendations for bridge design plans, bridge inspection and training of bridge inspectors.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Arizona Purchaser Dwelling Actions Are Subject to a New Construction

    September 04, 2019 —
    Arizona recently amended its Purchaser Dwelling Action statute to, among other things, involve all contractors in the process, establish the parties’ burdens of proof, add an attorney fees provision, establish procedural requirements and limit a subcontractor’s indemnity exposure. The governor signed the bill—2019 Ariz. SB 1271—on April 10, 2019, and the changes go into effect and apply, retroactively “to from and after June 30, 2019.” The following discussion details some of the changes to the law. Notice to Contractors and Proportional Liability Under the revised law, a “Seller” who receives notice of a Purchaser Dwelling Action (PDA) from a residential dwelling purchaser pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1363* has to promptly forward the notice to all construction professionals—i.e. architects, contractors, subcontractors, etc., as defined in A.R.S. § 12-1361(5)—that the Seller reasonably believes are responsible for an alleged construction defect. A.R.S. § 12-1363(A). Sellers can deliver the notice by electronic means. Once construction professionals are placed on notice, they have the same right to inspect, test and repair the property as the Seller originally placed on notice. A.R.S. § 12-1362(B), (C). To the extent that the matter ultimately goes to suit, A.R.S. § 12-1632(D) dictates that, subject to Arizona Rules of Court, construction professionals “shall be joined as third-party defendants.” To establish liability, the purchaser has the burden of proving the existence of a construction defect and the amount of damages. Thereafter, the trier of fact determines each defendant’s or third-party defendant’s relative degree of fault and allocates the pro rata share of liability to each based on their relative degree of fault. However, the seller, not the purchaser, has the burden of proving the pro rata share of liability for any third-party defendant. A.R.S. § 12-1632(D). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Finalists in San Diego’s Moving Parklet Design Competition Announced

    September 03, 2014 —
    The city of San Diego together with the Downtown San Diego Partnership sponsored the Moving Parklet Design competition, and the winning design will be built and “used in public areas and legally permitted parking spaces throughout downtown San Diego to add a new and unique gathering space for the community,” according to the San Diego Source. A mobile parklet “is a small, innovative park that can move from location to location.” The winning team is chosen by facebook voters and will receive $5,000. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Scaffolding Purchase Suggests No New Building for Board of Equalization

    July 30, 2014 —
    Employees at California’s Board of Equalization spoke out against the Brown administration after the state purchased new scaffolding for the defect-riddled building, rather than finding a new facility, reported the Sacramento Bee. The existing scaffolding was leased for $10,000 per month, but the lease expired, prompting the purchase of new scaffolding for about $100,000. The board’s Chairman Jerome Horton stated “that while the change may make financial sense in the short term, it sends a signal that the Department of General Services intends to keep Equalization’s 2,200 or so employees in the troubled building,” according to the Sacramento Bee. Building problems include “toxic mold, defective elevators, leaking windows, corroded wastewater pipes, floods, and exterior glass panels that spontaneously break or pop off.” So far, $2.3 million has been paid “in connection with building-related employee injury claims” along with $60 million in repairs. However, an additional $115 million is estimated to completely fix the defects. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    General Partner Is Not Additional Insured For Construction Defect Claim

    August 26, 2015 —
    The court determined that the project owner's general partner was not an additional insured entitled to a defense and indemnity against claims for construction defects. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v,. Cypress Fairway Condo. Ass'n, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94012 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2015). Construction of the Cypress Fairway Condominium project took place in 1999 and 2000. Cypress Fairway Ltd. ("Cypress") was the owner and Vineland Partners , LLC ("Vineland") was its general partner. The general contractor was Winter Park Construction Company ("WPC"). Water intrusion and property damage occurred, but it was unclear when or whether the damage was known. Cypress' expert indicated that the damage began shortly after the end of construction. In 2004, the complex was sold to Cypress Madison Ownership Company. In 2010, the Cypress Fairway Condominium Association sued Cypress and Vineland. Count V of the underlying complaint asserted there were construction defects that Cypress and Vineland were responsible for when they owned and managed the project. Count VI alleged that Cypress and Vineland negligently supplied information which the Association relied on for the purchase of the condominiums. 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

    Building Supplier Sued for Late and Defective Building Materials

    December 04, 2013 —
    The Lawson Henry Co. bought an unfinished townhome in Snowshoe, West Virginia with the intent of getting it finished and sold. To reach that goal, they contracted with O.C. Cluss Professional Services and O.C. Cluss Lumber Co. to provide them with building materials. According to the plaintiff, Cluss failed to deliver the building materials by the agreed-on date, causing the plaintiff to miss out on the peak season for selling the townhome. The suit also alleges that in addition to materials being delivered late, some were defective or of poor quality. The Lawson Henry Co. is charging Charles C. Cluss and his companies of breach of contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of