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


    New York Bridge to Be Largest Infrastructure Project in North America

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    Jury Instruction That Fails to Utilize Concurrent Cause for Property Loss is Erroneous

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Burks Smith and Katie Keller Win Daubert Motion Excluding Plaintiff’s Expert’s Testimony in the Middle District of Florida

    Construction Lien Needs to Be Recorded Within 90 Days from Lienor’s Final Furnishing

    Boston Catwalk Collapse Injures Three Workers

    How to Prepare for Potential Construction Disputes Resulting From COVID-19

    Health Officials Concerned About Lead-Tainted Dust Created by Detroit Home Demolitions

    After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

    Another Law Will Increase Construction Costs in New York

    Legislative Changes that Impact Construction 2017

    Dallas Home Being Built of Shipping Containers

    Federal Court Finds Occurrence for Faulty Workmanship Under Virginia Law

    New-Home Sales in U.S. Unexpectedly Fall to Four-Month Low

    No Escape: California Court of Appeals Gives a Primary CGL Insurer’s “Other Insurance” Clause Two Thumbs Down

    Illinois Law Bars Coverage for Construction Defects in Insured's Work

    Portion of Washington State’s Prevailing Wage Statute Struck Down … Again

    Review of Recent Contractors State License Board Changes

    When to Withhold Retention Payments on Private or Public Projects

    Want a Fair Chance at a Government Contract? Think Again

    A Third of U.S. Homebuyers Are Bidding Sight Unseen

    Coverage, Bad Faith Upheld In Construction Defect Case

    Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits

    Construction Industry Groups Challenge DOL’s New DBRA Regulations

    Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)

    Nine Gibbs Giden Partners Listed in Southern California Super Lawyers 2022

    Scotiabank Is Cautious on Canada Housing as RBC, BMO Seek Action

    Not a Waiver for All: Maryland Declines to Apply Subrogation Waiver to Subcontractors

    Appraisal Process Analyzed

    Builders Association Seeks to Cut Down Grassroots Green Building Program (Guest Post)

    Drafting the Bond Form, Particularly Performance Bond Form

    Ninth Circuit: Speculative Injuries Do Not Confer Article III Standing

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 2- Increase the Heat

    At $350 Million, Beverly Hillbillies Mansion Is Most Expensive in U.S.

    NJ Court Reaffirms Rule Against Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims and Finds Fraud Claims Inherently Intentional

    2021 Construction Related Bills to Keep an Eye On [UPDATED]

    Five Keys to Driving Digital Transformation in Engineering and Construction

    On-Site Supersensing and the Future of Construction Automation – Discussion with Aviad Almagor

    Australia Warns of Multi-Billion Dollar Climate Disaster Costs

    "Multiple Claims" Provisions on Contractor's Professional Liability Policy Creates a Trap for Policyholders

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Eliminates Loss from Hurricane

    Insurer’s Confession Of Judgment Through Post-Lawsuit Payment

    Subcontract Should Flow Down Delay Caused by Subcontractors

    Insurance Companies Score Win at Supreme Court

    Labor Development Impacting Developers, Contractors, and Landowners

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

    Colorado Supreme Court Rules that Developers Retain Perpetual Control over Construction Defect Covenants

    Suzanne Pollack Elected to Lawyers Club of San Diego 2021 Board of Directors

    California Joins the Majority of States in Modifying Its Survival Action Statute To Now Permit Recovery for Pain, Suffering And Disfigurement

    Commercial Real Estate Brokerages in an Uncertain Russian Market
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Fairfield's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Virginia Families Hope to Sue over Chinese Drywall

    October 10, 2013 —
    Although Virginia isn't in the Fifth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, some Virginia homeowners ended up with a case there. And now the court has to decide whether Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. can be sued in American courts for defects in its products. The case made its way to Louisiana after the courts consolidated cases from across the country. If the court decides that the homeowners can’t sue, they could appeal to the Supreme Court, although that’s likely a longshot. Or, the homeowners could sue in the Chinese courts, also not likely. More than 300 homes in Virginia are affected by fumes from the Chinese-made drywall, but only seven residents in the town of Hampton Roads are at the heart of the current case. They were chosen as representative of the entire group. Those seven have been collectively awarded $2.6 million, but the drywall manufacturer is appealing the judgement. If Taishan is victorious, then the damages already awarded will be overturned and there won’t be an option for the others. The drywall emitted gases which corroded metals in the homes. One couple, Steve and Liz Heischober went through seven air conditioning coils in three years, along with problems with corrosion of appliances and electrical systems. If the current suit succeeds, the Heischobers, and the other, will be compensated for their damages, including the costs of repair and relocation. If Taishan loses, they could be responsible for about $1 billion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    It Has Started: Supply-Chain, Warehouse and Retail Workers of Essential Businesses Are Filing Suit

    June 22, 2020 —
    Supply-chain businesses that are appropriately characterized as “essential” have remained open for the delivery of critical supplies while everyone else has been told to close up shop and stay home. Now essential-business employees are contracting COVID-19 and filing suit. Following up on our earlier piece — “Is a Violation of a COVID-19 Order the Basis For Civil Liability?” — it is important to recognize that government directives, oftentimes couched as “recommendations,” can come to define what it means to provide a reasonably safe workplace that protects employees from COVID-19. While common law negligence defenses consider the reasonableness of conduct, these directives will likely become the standard. The cases that have been filed are overwhelmingly premised upon the timeless negligence construct. The negligence construct, simply put, imposes a duty to act as a reasonable person would under the circumstances. Nonetheless, while the negligence construct lives in the ordinary world of “reasonableness,” infection-control guidance lives in the rapidly developing world of the science of COVID-19. Guidance on seemingly basic questions, such as the methods of transmission (e.g., personal contact, mucus membrane only, airborne transmission) or even the virus’s shelf life on different surfaces, of particular interest packaging and material handling equipment, can change by the day. All of this provides challenges for the supply-side business looking to protect its workforce. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys James Burger, Robert Devine and Douglas Weck Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Weck may be contacted at weckd@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New World to Demolish Luxury Hong Kong Towers in Major Setback

    August 04, 2021 —
    New World Development Co. will demolish two towers at Hong Kong’s most popular housing development in decades and compensate buyers after finding unexpected defects, in a major setback for the real estate company. The developer will pull down and rebuild the existing floors of Towers 1 and 8 at its Pavilia Farm III project near Tai Wai station after it found the concrete strength in some areas did not meet design requirements, the Hong Kong-based company said in a statement. Shares of New World fell as much as 4.8% Thursday in Hong Kong, the most in more than seven months, before recovering to close 3.9% lower. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shawna Kwan, Bloomberg

    A Look at Business and Professions Code Section 7031

    July 09, 2014 —
    Garret Murai, on his California Construction Law Blog, stated that California’s Business and Professions Code Section 7031 has often been described as draconian, harsh, and unjust—but still enforceable. The section does two things: first, it “prohibits unlicensed or improperly licensed contractors from suing to recover compensation for construction work requiring a license,” and second, it “permits property owners to sue such contractors for disgorgement of all compensation paid for such work.” According to Murai, the “strict enforcement of Section 7031” is thought to ensure “that contractors meet the minimum qualifications necessary for licensure.” Murai analyzed the case E. J. Franks Construction, Inc. v Sahota, which “carved out a limited exception to Section 7031 for contractors who form business entities and transfer their existing contractor’s license to such entities.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Loss Caused by Theft, Continuous Water Discharge Not Covered

    September 17, 2015 —
    The insured's claim for loss based on theft and water leaks was not covered under the property policy. SJP Props. v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97216 (E.D. Mo. July 27, 2015). SJP Properties bought and sold foreclosed properties. On July 13, 2006, it purchased at a foreclosure sale a property in St. Louis. The property was not inspected before or after the purchase, and sat vacant for more than two years. No one checked regularly on the property. The property was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Mount Vernon, effective from March 8, 2006 to March 8, 2009. The policy covered vandalism, but excluded loss caused by theft. An exception for the exclusion provided coverage for "building damage caused by the breaking in or exiting of burglars." The policy also excluded loss or damage caused by fungus, wet rot, dry rot and bacteria or water leaks for a period of 14 days or more. 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

    Duty To Defend PFAS MDL Lawsuits: Texas Federal Court Weighs In

    August 10, 2021 —
    Few courts have yet decided insurance coverage issues in litigation involving per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). But yesterday, in Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company v. Chemicals, Inc., No. H-20-3493, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146702 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2021), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas found Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Crum & Forster) had a duty to defend Chemicals, Inc. against firefighters’ allegations that they were injured by PFAS contained in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). The AFFF claims are consolidated in the multi-district litigation (MDL) in South Carolina, and you can read more about that here. Turning to the decision from August 5, 2021, Crum & Forster issued commercial general liability insurance policies to Chemicals, Inc. for liability arising from bodily injury, to the extent that injury “first occur[ed] during the ‘policy period[.]’” Further, a “Continuous or Progressive Damage or Injury” condition in the policies stated, “If the date cannot be determined upon which such ‘bodily injury’ … first occurred[,] then, … such ‘bodily injury’ … will be deemed to have occurred or existed, … before the ‘policy period’.” The Crum & Forster policies were issued between 2011 and 2019. The complaints in the MDL do not specify when the firefighters were allegedly exposed to PFAS-containing AFFF or when the firefighters first allegedly manifested symptoms of such exposure. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hurdles with Triggering a Subcontractor Performance Bond

    April 05, 2017 —
    There have been a couple of decisions as of late, particularly in federal court, that have gone in favor of a performance bond surety and against a general contractor’s claim against a subcontractor’s performance bond. These decisions have been so unfavorable that they may be swaying certain internal decisions to move to subcontractor default insurance with, perhaps, subcontractors that pose less risk. From the general contractor’s perspective, if they have to stop the management of the job and progress to jump through hoops to trigger the performance bond’s obligations, rightfully or wrongfully, the bond may not provide them the value they need. Performance bonds are an appropriate product in many instances, but there should be more consistency regarding the actual trigger of a subcontractor’s performance bond obligations. Project teams need to absolutely understand what efforts they need to take, and how they need to take such efforts, in order to properly trigger a performance bond’s obligations. This is a must (and I have presented many seminars on this very issue). Or, the general contractor should move away from the traditional AIA /standard performance bond form, which is the direction I always go when I am involved in the drafting of a performance bond. 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

    Insured's Collapse Claim Survives Summary Judgment

    October 28, 2024 —
    The insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking to dispose of the insured's claim for collapse was denied. Life Skills, Inc. v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143658 (D. Mass. Aug. 13, 2024). Life Skills was a non-profit social service agency providing residential and day habilitation services to adults with autism and intellectual and developmental disabilities. The head office was covered by a policy issued by Harleysville with building coverage limits of $3,038,300. Damage occurred in a ceramics classroom located in the basement of the building. The floor sank between eight to twelve inches in the northeast corner. The ceramics classroom contained two large kilns weighing approximately 200 pounds. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com