BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect 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


    Congratulations to BWB&O for Ranking #4 in Orange County Business Journal’s 2023 Book of Lists for Law Firms!

    Washington State May Allow Common Negligence Claims against Construction Professionals

    Florida Governor Bans Foreign Citizens From Buying Land in Florida

    Second Month of US Construction Spending Down

    Former Mayor Arrested for Violating Stop Work Order

    General Release of Contractor Upheld Despite Knowledge of Construction Defects

    Georgia Supreme Court Limits Damages Under Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act

    Pine Island Bridge in Place as Florida Pushes Barrier Island Access in Ian's Wake

    The Clock is Ticking: Construction Delays and Liquidated Damages

    Australians Back U.S. Renewables While Opportunities at Home Ebb

    Business Risk Exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 Found Ambiguous

    The Proposed House Green New Deal Resolution

    Oregon Condo Owners Make Construction Defect Claim

    Concrete Worker Wins Lawsuit and Settles with Other Defendant

    The Other Side of the North Dakota Oil Boom: Evictions

    Florida Appellate Courts Holds Underwriting Manuals are Discoverable in Breach of Contract Case

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2023 “Atlanta 500” List

    When to use Arbitration to Resolve Construction Disputes

    New Jersey Supreme Court Upholds $400 Million Award for Superstorm Sandy Damages

    Surprising Dismissal of False Claims Act Case Based on Appointments Clause - What Does It Mean?

    Los Angeles Considering Census of Seismically Unstable Buildings

    Time to Update Your Virginia Mechanic’s Lien Forms (July 1, 2019)

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    New Florida Bill Shortens Time for Construction-Defect Lawsuits

    Rental Assistance Program: Good News for Tenants and Possibly Landlords

    The Top 10 Changes to the AIA A201: What You Need to Know

    Minnesota Senate Office Building Called Unconstitutional

    Insurance Attorney Gary Barrera Joins Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group

    Dispute Waged Over Design of San Francisco Subway Job

    #7 CDJ Topic: Truck Ins. Exchange v. O'Mailia

    Hurricane Claim Cannot Survive Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives First Tier Ranking by U.S. News and World Reports

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Condo Buyers Seek to Void Sale over Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Consumer Confidence in U.S. Increases More Than Forecast

    Construction Needs Collaborative Planning

    Do Municipal Gas Bans Slow the Clean Hydrogen Transition in Real Estate?

    Cape Town Seeks World Cup Stadium Construction Collusion Damages

    Insurer's Failure to Settle Does Not Justify Multiple Damages under Unfair Claims Settlement Law

    The Dangers of an Unlicensed Contractor from Every Angle

    When it Comes to Trials, it’s Like a Box of Chocolates. Sometimes You Get the Icky Cream Filled One

    Colorado Legislative Update: HB 20-1155, HB 20-1290, and HB 20-1348

    Designed to Expose: Beware Lender Certificates

    District Court of Missouri Limits Whining About the Scope of Waiver of Subrogation Clauses in Wine Storage Agreements

    NY Estimating Consultant Settles $3.1M Government Project Fraud Case

    Deductibles Limited to Number of Suits Filed Against Insured, Not Number of Actual Plaintiffs

    How Many Homes have Energy-Efficient Appliances?

    Insurance Company Must Show that Lead Came from Building Materials

    Res Judicata Bars Insured from Challenging Insurer's Use of Schedule to Deduct Depreciation from the Loss

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

    Buyer's Demolishing of Insured's Home Not Barred by Faulty Construction Exclusion

    June 21, 2017 —
    Loss of the insured's home caused by a renter who demolished the home was covered under the homeowner's policy. Fisher v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2017 Idaho LEXIS 143 (Idaho May 26, 2017). The insured, Shammie L. Fisher, entered a Purchase Agreement to sell her home to Ron Reynoso. The purchase of the property was contingent upon Reynoso obtaining financing. Before completing the purchase, he would lease the property. The Agreement stated, "Buyer intends to make certain improvements to the property upon possession, with the intent to sell the property for a profit." Within two months of renting the property to Reynoso, Fisher learned that he had demolished the entire house down to the foundation. He then ceased work and left. Fisher made a claim under her policy, but Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company denied coverage based upon the exclusion for faulty, inadequate or defective work. When Fisher sued, the trial court granted summary judgment to Garrison. 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

    Will They Blow It Up?

    March 28, 2012 —

    The issues concerning the Harmon Towers building in Las Vegas continue to make their way through the courts. As we noted in a previous piece, Cook County building officials stated that the building could be a hazard if Las Vegas were struck by an earthquake. The question of whether the building will continue to stand is just one of the issues in front of a judge.

    MGM Resorts International argued at a March 13 hearing for permission to implode the Harmon hotel building. They claim that more than 1,700 defects have been discovered in the building and that the building is a public safety hazard. Arguing against demolition, Perini Building Company, the general contractor for the hotel, and its subcontractors are claiming that imploding the building would destroy evidence and prejudice juries in the ongoing construction defect claims. They claim that MGM Resorts wishes to abandon the building due to the economic slowdown. Perini Corp, the contractor for the project, claims that the building can be fixed. Perini claims that MGM’s position in the construction trial would be improved if the building is demolished.

    After Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez heard the four days of testimony on the Harmon Towers building and whether it should be demolished, she scheduled more testimony, with two days in April and an entire week in July. Judge Gonzalez will be deciding whether the building will be torn down, imploded, or left in place.

    Read the full story…

    Read the full story…

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

    Graham & Who May Trigger The Need To Protest

    December 23, 2023 —
    On May 30, 2023, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division I, issued a decision that appears to expand a contractor’s obligation with respect to WSDOT notice and claim procedures. In Graham Contracting, Ltd. v. City of Federal Way, No. 83494-1-I, 2023 WL 3721171 (Wash. Ct. App. May 30, 2023) (Unpublished), the Court held that under the 2016 WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (“Standard Specifications”), a Contractor must protest the actions of not only the “Engineer” but also the actions of any person or organization acting on behalf of the Owner. This case arises out of a public construction contract in which Graham Contracting Ltd (“Graham”) built a multi-million dollar roadway improvement for the City of Federal Way along a stretch of Pacific Highway. The appeal was from the trial court’s granting of the City’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims by Graham for extra time and money due to delays and impacts to Graham’s construction of the Project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hugo Fraga, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Fraga may be contacted at hugo.fraga@acslawyers.com

    Attorney Writing Series on Misconceptions over Construction Defects

    June 28, 2013 —
    Mark Wiechnik, a litigation partner at Herrick, Feinstein LLP, has started a seven-part series in which he looks at the misconceptions homeowner board members have when they’re facing construction defect lawsuits. He opens by setting the scene of unit owners “complaining of leaks, roof problems, mold and myriad of other issues”, but conflicting views on what to do about them. In his series, he looks at some of the most common mistaken assumptions and discusses how board members should respond. Wiechnik’s first misconception examined is the claim that “we should file a homeowners warranty claim right away!” He notes that this is “rarely a good idea,” since if the building is more than two years old, the warranty will only be worthwhile if the building is near collapse. He also notes that once you file a warranty claim, “the association is precluded from ever filing a lawsuit on that issue.” Additionally, Wiechnik points out that filing a warranty claim puts everything into the hands of an arbitrator, who gets control of the whole process and whose decision is final, whether the association is happy with the results. Further, he notes, “the program favors builders and contractors over the homeowners.” In his second section, he looks at the fears that if the developer is bankrupt, there is no point is suing. Here he notes that the money for repairs does not come from the developer, but “from the developer’s and subcontractor’s insurance carriers.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Sounds of Silence: Pennsylvania’s Sutton Rule

    January 29, 2024 —
    In Westminster Am. Ins. Co. a/s/o Androulla M. Toffalli v. Bond, No. 538 EDA 2023, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 626, 2023 PA Super 272, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Appellate Court) recently discussed the impact of silence on the Sutton Rule with respect to the landlord, Androulla M. Toffalli (Landlord), securing insurance. After holding that the tenant, Amy S. Bond (Bond) t/a Blondie’s Salon – who leased both commercial and residential space in the building pursuant to written leases – was not an implied “co-insured” on Landlord’s insurance policy, the Appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial court. In this case, Bond rented the ground floor of a property located in Monroe County pursuant to a written commercial lease (Commercial Lease) and operated Blondie’s salon out of the leased location. In addition, Bond rented and lived in a second-floor apartment pursuant to a residential lease (Residential Lease). Both leases required the tenants (Tenants) to obtain insurance for personal items. The leases, however, did not require Landlord to obtain fire insurance for the property. 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

    2015 California Construction Law Update

    December 31, 2014 —
    Over 2,200 bills were introduced during the second and final year of the 2013-2014 legislative session of which 931 were signed into law. For the design and construction industry, the end of the second session, like the end of the first session, saw a number of new prevailing wage bills signed into law, which again reflected the strong Democratic majorities in both the Assembly and Senate. The end of the second session also saw the enactment of laws consolidating several existing design-build authorization sections and extending the 5% cap on retention for public works projects. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    A Discussion on Home Affordability

    April 08, 2014 —
    Krishna Rao, in the online publication Zillow Real Estate Research, analyzed statistics on home price affordability across the United States. Rao found that “[a]cross the United States, strong home price affordability has been recently eroded by a combination of rising home prices and mortgage rates. Some areas, particularly on the West Coast, have begun to look unaffordable compared to their historic norms, forcing some household to look to the periphery of urban areas in search of affordable homes.” However, John McManus in Big Builder said a more helpful term when looking at the new home market would be “relative affordability (which inheres both payment power and access to credit).” “Little attention has been given to the fact that many builders' mix--first- and second-time move-up and higher end homes.” McManus wrote that this “has skewed pricing conversations. When the buyer is ‘discretionary,’ has access to cash and no impediment of another property to sell in order to trigger a purchase--then both base price and price elasticity can be greater.” Read the full story, Zillow... Read the full story, Big Builder... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” and “Your Work” Exclusion

    July 23, 2014 —
    In J.B.D. Construction, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., * Fed.Appx. *, 2014 WL 3377690 (11th Cir. 2014), claimant property owner Sun City contracted with insured general contractor J.B.D. for the construction of a fitness center. The fitness center was to be physically connected to an existing Sun City building. J.B.D. utilized subcontractors for some of the work. Shortly after completion, leaks developed in the fitness center’s roof, windows and doors which J.B.D. attempted to fix. After Sun City refused to make the final contract payment, J.B.D. sued Sun City for contract amounts owed. Sun City counterclaimed for the construction defects, alleged damage to the fitness center and other property. J.B.D. tendered defense of the counterclaim to its CGL insurer Mid-Continent. After Mid-Continent failed to agree to defend, J.B.D. settled with Sun City, paying Sun City $182K. Following several demands from J.B.D. for reimbursement of defense costs and the settlement amount, Mid-Continent tendered the defense costs minus a deductible. J.B.D. then sued Mid-Continent for breach of duties to defend and indemnify. On cross motions for summary judgment, the federal district trial court entered judgment for Mid-Continent, finding no duties to defend or indemnify. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed on the duty to defend while affirming on the duty to indemnify. Applying Florida law, the court first held that the defective work, including the defective installation of the fitness center’s windows, doors, and roof, did not constitute “property damage.” Thus, the costs to repair or replace the defective work did not constitute damages because of “property damage.” The court next held that, while damage to other portions of the fitness center would constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence,” all such “property damage” fell within the “your work” exclusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson, CD Coverage