BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code 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


    Take Advantage of AI and Data Intelligence in Construction

    Luxury-Apartment Boom Favors D.C.’s Millennial Renters

    Appraisal May Include Cause of Loss Issues

    Get Smarter About Electric Construction Equipment

    Bad Faith Claim for Inadequate Investigation Does Not Survive Summary Judgment

    When Construction Contracts Go Sideways in Bankruptcy

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes

    Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace “Prank” With Nail Gun

    Buffalo-Area Roof Collapses Threaten Lives, Businesses After Historic Snowfall

    Utility Contractor Held Responsible for Damaged Underground Electrical Line

    Georgia Supreme Court Limits Damages Under Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act

    Pinterest Nixes Big San Francisco Lease Deal in Covid Scaleback

    Seventh Circuit Confirms Additional Insured's Coverage for Alleged Construction Defects

    Admissibility of Expert Opinions in Insurance Bad Faith Trials

    Enforcement Of Contractual Terms (E.G., Flow-Down, Field Verification, Shop Drawing Approval, And No-Damage-For-Delay Provisions)

    Court Denies Insurers' Motions for Summary Judgment Under All Risk Policies

    Wonder How 2021 May Differ From 2020? Federal Data Privacy May Be Enacted - Be Prepared

    Connecticut Supreme Court to Review Several Issues in Asbestos Coverage Case

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation: A Redux

    Colorado Senate Voted to Kill One of Three Construction Defect Bills

    Attention Contractors: U.S. Department of Labor Issues Guidance on Avoiding Discrimination When Using AI in Hiring

    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    San Francisco Office Secures Defense Verdict in Legal Malpractice Action

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (11/8/23) – New Handling of Homelessness, Decline in Investments into ESG Funds, and Shrinking of a Homebuyer’s Dollar

    Lawmakers Strike Deal on New $38B WRDA

    Chinese Brooklyn-to-Los Angeles Plans Surge: Real Estate

    The Hazards of Carrier-Specific Manuscript Language: Ohio Casualty's Off-Premises Property Damage and Contractors' E&O Endorsements

    New Megablimp to Deliver to Remote Alaskan Construction Sites

    Don’t Fall in Trap of Buying the Cheapest Insurance Policy as it May be Bad for Your Business Risks and Needs

    When Business is Personal: Negligent and Intentional Interference Claims

    SEC Recommendations to Protect Against Cybersecurity Threats

    Court Says No to Additional Lawyer in Las Vegas Fraud Case

    Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

    Colorado Legislature Kills SB 20-138 – A Bill to Extend Colorado’s Statute of Repose

    Lenders and Post-Foreclosure Purchasers Have Standing to Make Construction Defect Claims for After-Discovered Conditions

    Is the Construction Industry Actually a Technology Hotbed?

    Touchdown! – The Construction Industry’s Winning Audible to the COVID Blitz

    Honoring Veterans Under Our Roof & Across the World

    Construction Contract Basics: Indemnity

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Indeed, You Just Design ‘Em”

    3 Common Cash Flow Issues That Plague The Construction Industry

    Rio de Janeiro's Bursting Real-Estate Bubble

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “You Left Out a Key Ingredient!”

    New California Standards Go into Effect July 1st

    BofA Said to Near Mortgage Deal for Up to $17 Billion

    Grad Student Sues UC Santa Cruz over Mold in Residence

    New York City Council’s Carbon Emissions Regulation Opposed by Real Estate Board

    New Jersey Supreme Court Ruled Condo Association Can’t Reset Clock on Construction Defect Claim

    Notice of Claim Sufficient to Invoke Coverage

    Chicago Developer and Trade Group Sue City Over Affordable Housing Requirements
    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

    CA Court of Appeal Reinstates Class Action Construction Defect Claims Against Homebuilder

    September 03, 2015 —
    Laurence R. Phillips, Andrew S. Azarmi, and Stefani Warren of Dentons reported that “on August 19, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reinstated a class action asserting construction defect claims against a nationwide homebuilder.” According to the article, the decision is significant because “it effectively opens the door to class claims against homebuilders (and potentially other service providers employed in the homebuilding industry) arising out of alleged construction defects on California residential development and construction projects.” The decision is unpublished, but “could signal a troubling trend for companies involved in the homebuilding industry in California. It is not yet clear whether the decision will be appealed to the California Supreme Court.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

    October 26, 2020 —
    Those of us who suffered through law school are familiar with the argument that there are fundamental rules applicable to contract interpretation and that a certain contract language interpretation would “swallow the rule.” However, insurance companies have long advocated for an interpretation of the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion that would “swallow the coverage” that the insureds thought they were purchasing. Insurers have successfully argued in several states that the pollution exclusion’s definition of “pollutant” should be read literally, and be applied to any “solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” As anyone with children can attest to, the range of items and substances that can be considered an “irritant” is limitless. The logical extent of the insurer’s interpretation brings to mind the high school student who, for his science fair project, convinced his fellow students to ban “dihydrogen monoxide.”1 Citing evidence such as the fact that everyone who has ever died was found to have consumed “dihydrogen monoxide,” he convinced them of the dangers of . . . water. Similarly, an overly expansive reading of the definition of “pollutant” could lead to the absurd result of even applying it to ubiquitous harmless substances such as water. The pollution exclusion, therefore, has run amok in many states and has allowed insurers to avoid liability for otherwise covered claims. Fortunately, insureds in many states have successfully argued that the pollution exclusion is subject to a more limited interpretation based on several different theories. For example, some courts have agreed that the pollution exclusion, as initially introduced by the insurance industry, should be limited to instances of traditional environmental pollution. Others have held that the exclusion is ambiguous as to its interpretation. The reasonable expectations of the insureds do not support a broad reading of the defined term “pollutant.” Below, this article addresses a number of recent decisions that have adopted a pro policyholder interpretation of the pollution exclusion. As with most insurance coverage issues, choice of law clearly matters. Reprinted courtesy of Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Little Changed in January

    January 28, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- Confidence among U.S. homebuilders hovered in January close to a nine-year high, indicating the residential real estate market is poised to expand this year. While the National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo builder sentiment gauge fell to 57 this month from 58 in December, readings greater than 50 mean more respondents report good market conditions, according to figures issued from the Washington-based group Tuesday. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey called for 58. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News

    Condominium Construction Defect Resolution in the District of Columbia

    October 26, 2017 —
    Newly constructed and newly converted condominiums in the District of Columbia often contain concealed or “latent” construction defects. Left undetected and unrepaired, defects in the construction of a condominium can cause extensive damage over time, requiring associations to assess their members substantial repair costs that could have been avoided by making timely developer warranty claims. This article provides a general overview of how Washington DC condominium associations transitioning from developer control can proactively and successfully identify defects and resolve construction defect claims with condominium developers and builders. Condominium Association Responsibility for Timely Evaluation of Common Element Construction Condominium associations are charged with the responsibility of overseeing and maintaining condominium common element facilities, typically consisting of building roofs, exterior walls, foundations, lobbies, common hallways, elevators, surrounding grounds, and the common structural mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. Following the period of developer control, it is incumbent upon a condominium association’s first unit owner elected board of directors to evaluate the construction of the condominium common element facilities and determine whether the existing, developer-created, budget and reserve fund are adequate to cover the cost of maintaining, repairing, and ultimately replacing the condominium facilities over time. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.
    Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

    Why Is It So Hard to Kill This Freeway?

    April 18, 2023 —
    Keith Pete remembers what Claiborne Avenue was like before the interstate. As a child in the early 1960s, the native New Orleanian would come to Claiborne Avenue with his dad to buy chickens from the local grocers. Sometimes, as a treat, father and son would get hamburgers on French rolls and pineapple juice and picnic on the neutral ground — the avenue’s wide, grassy median, which was thick with live oak trees and azaleas. “People used to sit and enjoy the weather,” Pete, 68, recalls. “There was beautiful grass all the way down. It was gorgeous.” At the time, Claiborne Avenue coursed through the heart of New Orleans’ Tremé neighborhood and a major center of Black commerce and culture. “It was safe; it was thriving,” Pete said. “It was mostly wiped out.” In 1966, workers began removing the avenue’s oaks and driving the pilings that would transform 18 blocks of the tree-lined boulevard into a viaduct carrying Interstate 10. While plans for a Robert Moses-designed waterfront freeway through the French Quarter were halted in 1969 after intense resistance from historic preservationists, the state- and city-backed Claiborne Expressway proceeded. The elevated highway and its tangle of off-ramps destroyed some 500 homes and 326 Black-owned businesses. The once-thriving corridor became a dark, noisy netherworld, unsafe for pedestrians and unhealthy for anyone who breathes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Benjamin Schneider, Bloomberg

    Mechanic’s Liens and Leases Don’t Often Mix Well

    May 03, 2021 —
    As those who read my “musings” here at this construction law blog are well aware, the topic of Virginia mechanic’s liens is one that is much discussed. From the basic statutory requirements to the more technical aspects of these tricky beasts. One aspect of mechanic’s liens that I have yet to discuss in detail it how these liens attach in the situation where the contractor does work for a lessee and not for the owner of the underlying fee interest in the property. A recent case out of the Western District of Virginia federal court, McCarthy Building Companies Inc. v. TPE Virginia Land Holdings LLC, discusses the interaction of Va. Code 43-20, work on a leasehold, and parties necessary to any litigation relating to a lien for the work on that leasehold. The basic facts, outlined more thoroughly in the linked opinion, are these. MBC provided certain work to TPE Kentuck Solar, LLC on property leased from TPE Virginia Land Holdings, LLC. The lease was for a fixed term and for a fixed amount regardless of the work performed at the property. MBC was unpaid by the Kentuck entity and then recorded a lien on the property and then sued to enforce that lien and for unjust enrichment against TPE Land Holdings. TPE Land Holding filed a motion to dismiss the mechanic’s lien and unjust enrichment counts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    The “Climate 21 Project” Prepared for the New Administration

    December 21, 2020 —
    This is a brief review of the recently released “Climate 21 Project” policy memo. It is the work of many former members of the Obama Administration who are deeply concerned about climate change and what steps the new administration can take in the first 100 days to confront a problem. Offering “actionable advice” rather than a policy agenda, the group recognizes that Congress must do its part by providing new statutory authorities within the early days of the new administration, and the President must be prepared to aggressively exercise the powers of his office. As the members of the Group see it, there are four interlocking crises facing the President: (a) the COVID-19 pandemic; (b) the economic devastation visited upon many people by the pandemic; (c) racial injustice; and (d) accelerating threats posed by climate change. Accordingly: 1. The Executive Office of the President must take stronger steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through domestic investment, rulemakings, policy changes, and international diplomacy. A new Special Assistant for Climate Change must be created to take charge of these climate change initiatives. There should also be established in the Executive Office of the President a National Climate Change Council. All agencies must be advised of the urgency of this problem. The paper seems to envision a substantial growth in the White Hose staff. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Texas Federal Court Delivers Another Big Win for Policyholders on CGL Coverage for Construction-Defect Claims and “Rip-and-Tear” Damages

    March 14, 2022 —
    Insurers regularly argue that commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies are not performance bonds and therefore there is no coverage for claims seeking damages for defective or faulty workmanship. Insurers also argue there is no coverage for so-called “tear-out” or “rip-and-tear” damages, where fixing property damage requires replacing defective work that has not itself been damaged. Fortunately, in a newly decided case, a Texas federal district court rejected both arguments by an insurer. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company v. McMillin Texas Homes, LLC, No. SA-20-CV-01332-XR, 2022 WL 686727 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2022). As with most construction-defect claims, this case involved homeowner claims against a residential developer, McMillin Texas Homes (“McMillin”). After the homes were completed, homeowners complained about defects in the artificial stucco exterior finish and filed suit. McMillin tendered to its insurer, Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company (“Amerisure”). Amerisure then sued McMillin for declaratory relief, arguing that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the homeowner claims. McMillin filed a counterclaim alleging Amerisure breached its policies by refusing to defend or indemnify McMillin. Reprinted courtesy of Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears, Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com Mr. De Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of