BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic 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


    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Lets Broad General Release Stand in SB 800 Case

    Court Rejects Efforts to Limit Scope of Judgment Creditor’s Direct Action Under Insurance Code Section 11580

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

    Charges in Kansas Water Park Death

    Another Defect Found on the Bay Bridge: Water Leakage

    A Word to the Wise about Construction Defects

    NEW DEFECT WARRANTY LAWS – Now Applicable to Condominiums and HOAs transitioning from Developer to Homeowner Control. Is Your Community Aware of its Rights Under the New Laws?

    Strict Rules for Home Remodel Contracts in California

    Google, Environmentalists and University Push Methane-Leak Detection

    The Hidden Price of Outdated Damage Prevention Laws: Part I

    Bad Faith Claim for Inadequate Investigation Does Not Survive Summary Judgment

    Technology and the Environment Lead Construction Trends That Will Continue Through 2019

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Named 2019 Super Lawyers

    Construction Law- Where Pragmatism and Law Collide

    Apartment Construction Increasing in Colorado while Condo Construction Remains Slow

    Construction Defect Litigation in Nevada Called "Out of Control"

    ADP Says Payrolls at Companies in U.S. Increase 200,000

    Substitutions On a Construction Project — A Specification Writer Responds

    Indiana Court of Appeals Rules Against Contractor and Performance Bond Surety on Contractor's Differing Site Conditions Claim

    My Construction Law Wish List

    When Can a General Contractor’s Knowledge be Imputed to a Developer?

    Spencer Mayer Receives Miami-Dade Bar Association's '40 Under 40' Award

    Denver Airport's Renovator Uncovers Potential Snag

    Condo Owners Suing Bank for Failing to Disclose Defects

    Recovery Crews Swing Into Action as Hurricane Michael Departs

    As Trump Visits Border, Texas Landowners Prepare to Fight the Wall

    2017 Colorado Construction Defect Recap: Colorado Legislature and Judiciary Make Favorable Advances for Development Community

    CDJ’s #6 Topic of the Year: Does Colorado Need Construction Defect Legislation to Spur Affordable Home Development?

    Consultant Says It's Time to Overhaul Construction Defect Laws in Nevada

    Maui Wildfire Cleanup Advances to Debris Removal Phase

    Boston Catwalk Collapse Injures Three Workers

    Court Rules that Damage From Squatter’s Fire is Not Excluded as Vandalism or Malicious Mischief

    Connecticut Federal District Court Keeps Busy With Collapse Cases

    Effective Strategies for Reinforcing Safety Into Evolving Design Standards

    Deadlines Count for Construction Defects in Florida

    A Brief Primer on Perfecting Your Mechanics Lien When the Property Owner Files Bankruptcy

    Reaffirming the Importance of Appeal Deadlines Under the Contract Disputes Act

    Washington Supreme Court Finds Agent’s Representations in Certificate of Insurance Bind Insurance Company to Additional Insured Coverage

    Construction Contract Clauses Only a Grinch Would Love – Part 4

    Illinois Supreme Court Finds Construction Defect Claim Triggers Initial Grant of Coverage

    Arezoo Jamshidi Selected to the 2023 San Diego Super Lawyers List

    Nevada Assembly Passes Construction Defect Bill

    Bidder Be Thoughtful: The Impacts of Disclaimers in Pre-Bid Reports

    COVID-izing Your Construction Contract

    U.S. Construction Spending Rose in 2017 by Least in Six Years

    Cameron Kalunian to Speak at Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    How You Plead Allegations to Trigger Liability Insurer’s Duties Is Critical

    Nevada’s Changing Liability Insurance Landscape—State Insurance Regulator Issues Emergency Regulation and Guidance Addressing Controversial “Defense-Within-Limits” Legislation

    Arctic Roads and Runways Face the Prospect of Rapid Decline

    Improperly Installed Flanges Are Impaired Property
    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

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    September 01, 2011 —

    Although the court determined there was an occurrence, coverage was excluded by the business risk exclusions.  See Cont’l W. Ins. Co. v. Shay Constr. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82839 (D. Colo. July 28, 2011).

    White was the general contractor on the project. White had three subcontracts with Shay to provide framing, siding, and related work on the project. Shay was insured under a CGL policy issued by Continental Western.

    Two of Shay’s subcontractors furnished materials, labor and equipment to Shay. These subcontractors filed suit in state court alleging they had not been compensated for the work and materials. White and Shay were named as defendants. White cross claimed against Shay, alleging Shay had breached its obligations under the subcontracts. Several allegations sounded in contract. Other allegations, however, contended Shay had performed defective work and had damaged the work of other trades in correcting deficiencies in its own performance.

    Shay sought coverage under Continental Western’s policy. Continental Western filed suit for a declaratory judgment and moved for summary judgment.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Toll Brothers Honored at the Shore Builders Association of Central New Jersey Awards

    May 13, 2024 —
    FREEHOLD, N.J., May 07, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Toll Brothers, Inc. (NYSE:TOL), the nation's leading builder of luxury homes, today announced that the Company's New Jersey Division was honored with six awards at the 2024 Fabulous Achievements in Marketing Excellence (FAME) Awards held at South Gate Manor in Freehold, New Jersey. Presented by the Shore Builders Association of Central New Jersey, the FAME Awards honor home builders of the New Jersey Builders Associations who have made major contributions to the home building industry. The awards span categories from product and design to advertising, marketing, and professional achievements. Toll Brothers was selected as the winner in the following categories: For more information on Toll Brothers communities in New Jersey, visit TollBrothers.com/NewJersey. About Toll Brothers Toll Brothers, Inc., a Fortune 500 Company, is¬ the nation's leading builder of luxury homes. The Company was founded 57 years ago in 1967 and became a public company in 1986. Its common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "TOL." The Company serves first-time, move-up, empty-nester, active-adult, and second-home buyers, as well as urban and suburban renters. Toll Brothers builds in over 60 markets in 24 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington, as well as in the District of Columbia. The Company operates its own architectural, engineering, mortgage, title, land development, smart home technology, and landscape subsidiaries. The Company also develops master-planned and golf course communities as well as operates its own lumber distribution, house component assembly, and manufacturing operations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    One Stat About Bathrooms Explains Why You Can’t Find a House

    June 10, 2015 —
    Thirty-six percent. That’s the share of homes built in the U.S. last year that had three or more bathrooms, up from 26 percent in 2005, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. If you’re on the market for your first home, that statistic can help explain why you’re having a hard time finding something you can afford. In the years since the recession, builders have devoted their energy to “move-up” homes, which is what the industry calls houses that are too expensive for most first-time buyers. The result is clear from the bureau’s report on the characteristics of new housing, released on Monday: New homes have more bedrooms, bathrooms, and parking spaces. If you prefer a more conventional measure, the median square footage for new homes has increased 10 percent in the past decade. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Clark, Bloomberg

    Skanska Will Work With Florida on Barge-Caused Damage to Pensacola Bay Bridge

    October 19, 2020 —
    Florida Dept. of Transportation investigators continue to assess damage to the Pensacola Bay Bridge, which sustained multiple impacts from two construction barges unmoored by Hurricane Sally’s storm-driven waves on Sept. 15. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Duty to Defend Bodily Injury Evolving Over Many Policy Periods Prorated in Louisiana

    November 17, 2016 —
    The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the duty to defend in long latency disease cases should be prorated between the insurer and insured when the policies cover for only a portion of the time in which the exposure occurred. Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 2016 La. LEXIS 1675 (La. Sept. 7, 2016). 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

    Be Proactive, Not Reactive, To Preserve Force Majeure Rights Regarding The Coronavirus

    March 30, 2020 —
    If you are involved in construction, NOW is the time to consider the potential force majeure impacts associated with the pandemic Coronavirus. Things are beginning to drastically change on a minute-by-minute basis. From travel restrictions, to the suspension or cancellation of events on an international level, to company-wide policies and restrictions, the global uncertainty has led to the possibility that a force majeure delay will occur. Thinking otherwise is not being proactive. The Coronavirus, and the impacts / delays associated therewith, is beyond anyone’s control. Due to the uncertainty, it is hard to fathom at this time a reasonable challenge to someone’s reaction to this concern or their companywide response to the concern.
      If you are a contractor, subcontractor, or even a supplier, my suggestions would be as follows:
    1. Revisit your contracts and see what type of force majeure language it has – anything relating to delays beyond your control or epidemics;
    2. Examine to see whether you have a basis for additional compensation AND additional time;
    3. Examine what type of notice you are required to provide for force majeure events;
    4. Be proactive – send notice now of the potentiality that this pandemic can impact / delay the job –no one should take offense to this letter as this pandemic has impacted all walks of life;
    5. If an impact occurs, send follow-up notice accordingly to ensure rights under the contract are preserved; and
    6. For future contracts, incorporate language that specifically addresses epidemics and pandemics now that the occurrence of this issue has become real.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Not Just Another Client Alert about Cyber-Risk and Effective Cybersecurity Insurance Regulatory Guidance

    April 01, 2015 —
    The prefix "cyber" was coined about 70 years ago to describe early stage computers, computer networks and virtual reality. Since then, the term has been used as a prefix for hundreds of words, however, the most recent (and newsworthy) usage is its link to the word “risk” and the correlative term “security.” Two sides of the same coin and not a day goes by when a data breach is not reported and the importance of cyber risk and cybersecurity underscored. Insurers, like other financial institutions, are at the forefront of the “cyber-curve.” Many insurers are particularly vulnerable on at least two fronts: (1) from a cyber risk/ cyber invasion perspective and; (2) an insurer’s insurance policy exposure, intentional and not, to third-parties under cyber policies, and even policies such as CGLs that may inadvertently cover such risks. A number of federal and state regulators have spoken to this issue in an effort to address cyber risks with varying degrees of specificity. At last count, in addition to a myriad of existing and proposed state laws and regulations, there are at least nine federal Bills under consideration by Congress (covering six federal agencies including one new agency) that seek to impose regulatory requirements upon the cyber-arena. Those Bills empower six regulatory agencies; including one new agency. Initially, some states required companies to notify affected persons of a data breach. As breaches became more serious, state and federal regulators sought to increase the industry’s awareness of the potential exposures and provided instructions on appropriate steps to protect data from cyber invasions. Now, state insurance regulators are examining not only the threat of data theft, but the balance sheet impact of insurance exposures for underwriting such risks for third-parties’ under cyber risk policies. The regulatory efforts continue to multiply in an effort to stem some of these risks. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert Ansehl, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Ansehl may be contacted at ansehlr@whiteandwilliams.com

    Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

    June 10, 2011 —

    The California Court of Appeals has ruled against a couple who sued their lawyer, after they were unhappy with the results of a construction defect case. Craig and Jeanne Petrik sued Mahaffey and Associates for legal malpractice and breach of contract. Their lawyer, Douglas L. Mahaffey, had settled their case for $400,000. The Petricks claimed Mahaffey did not have the authority make an offer to compromise.

    In the original case, Mahaffey held back the $400,000 awarded in the settlement until he and the Petricks came to terms on how much of that was owed to Mahaffey. The lower court concluded that the Petricks were due $146,323,18. The jury did not agree with the Petrik’s claim that conditions had been met in which Mahaffey would not be charging them costs.

    Judges O’Leary and Ikola wrote the opinion, with the third judge on the panel, Judge Bedworth offering a dissent only on their view of the cost waiver clause.

    Read the court’s opinion

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of