BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut expert witness windows
    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


    Chattanooga Bridge Collapse Likely Resulted From Impact

    Cincinnati Team Secures Summary Judgment for Paving Company in Trip-and-Fall Case

    OSHA Joins the EEOC in Analyzing Unsafe Construction Environments

    Montana Federal Court Upholds Application of Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    Vietnam Expands Arrests in Coffee Region Property Probe

    California Court Forces Insurer to Play Ball in COVID-19 Insurance Coverage Suit

    Mitigating Mold Exposure in Manufacturing and Multifamily Buildings

    A Year After Fatal Genoa Viaduct Collapse, Replacement Takes Shape

    Acceptable Worksite: New City of Seattle Specification Provisions Now In Effect

    Alleged Serious Defects at Hanford Nuclear Waste Treatment Plant

    The Future of Construction Tech Is Decision Tech

    NY Gov. Sets Industry Advisory Council to Fix Public Contracts Process

    SB800 CONFIRMED AS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS

    Alexander Moore Promoted to Managing Partner of Kahana Feld’s Oakland Office

    Another Defect Found on the Bay Bridge: Water Leakage

    Los Angeles Seeks Speedier Way to Build New Affordable Homes

    Suing a Local Government in Land Use Cases – Part 2 – Procedural Due Process

    Climate-Proofing Your Home: Upgrades to Weather a Drought

    Pending Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Increase 0.8% in November

    Kiewit-Turner Stops Work on VA Project—Now What?

    Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Meaning of "Living in the Same Household" for Purposes of Coverage Under a Homeowners Policy

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Clarifies Standard for Imposing Spoliation Sanctions

    The American Rescue Plan Act: What Restaurants Need to Act on NOW

    Insurers Can Sue One Another for Defense Costs on Equitable Indemnity and Equitable Contribution Basis

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 01/26/22

    Seven Trends That Impact Commercial Construction Litigation in 2021

    California Supreme Court Holds that Requirement of Prejudice for Late Notice Defense is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State for Choice of Law Analysis

    Tariffs, Supply Snarls Spur Search for Factories Closer to U.S.

    A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Substitution Hearings Under California’s Listing Law

    Tesla Powerwalls for Home Energy Storage Hit U.S. Market

    School’s Lawsuit over Defective Field Construction Delayed

    HUD Homeownership Push to Heed Lessons From Crisis, Castro Says

    CAPSA Changes Now in Effect

    Settlement Reached in Bridge Failure Lawsuit

    Mississippi exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    Showdown Over Landmark Housing Law Looms at U.S. Supreme Court

    1 De Haro: A Case Study on Successful Cross-Laminated Timber Design and Construction in San Francisco

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    Eye on Housing Examines Costs of Green Features

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

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant

    LAX Runway Lawsuit a Year Too Late?

    Latosha Ellis Joins The National Black Lawyers Top 40 Under 40

    Musk Backs Off Plan for Tunnel in Tony Los Angelenos' Backyard

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Insurer Springs a Leak in Its Pursuit of Subrogation

    Fannie-Freddie Propose Liquidity Rules for Mortgage Insurers

    Following My Own Advice

    New Case Alert: Oregon Supreme Court Prohibits Insurer’s Attempt to Relitigate Insured’s Liability

    Denial of Coverage for Bulge in Wall Upheld
    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. Leveraging 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

    Glendale City Council Approves Tohono O’odham Nation Casino

    August 13, 2014 —
    With a 4-3 vote, the Glendale, Arizona city council “approved an agreement with the Tohono O’odham Nation to build a casino adjacent to the city,” according to the Arizona Public Media. The tribe, under the agreement, “will commit more than $25 million over the next 20 years to the city.” The agreement also stipulates that Glendale “will try to convince state and federal officials to end their opposition to the casino plans.” City Councilman Gary Sherwood stated that he “he doesn't believe the tribe has firm plans for construction yet, but he said he wouldn't be surprised if there was gaming on the site by next fall.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    May 01, 2019 —
    In Ins. Co. of St. of PA v. Amer. Safety Indemnity Co. (No. B283684, filed 3/1/19) (“ICSOP”), a California appeals court rejected one insurer’s efforts to limit the scope of another insurer’s direct action as a judgment creditor under Insurance Code section 11580(b)(2). In ICSOP, homeowners filed a claim in arbitration against their general contractor alleging damages from subsidence. While the arbitration was pending, the general contractor filed suit against the grading subcontractor seeking indemnity and contribution. The complaint attached the homeowners’ complaint in arbitration pleading damages of $2.3 million, and alleged that the subcontractors had a duty to indemnify for those damages. The arbitrator awarded the homeowners $1.1 million. The general contractor was insured by plaintiff ICSOP, which paid the arbitration award. A default judgment was entered against the grading subcontractor for $1.5 million, that included both the arbitration award plus $356,340 for the general contractor’s attorney’s fees. American Safety insured the grading subcontractor but refused to indemnify ICSOP. ICSOP then sued American Safety on the default judgment, pursuant to Insurance Code section 11580(b). The trial court granted summary judgment for ICSOP and the appeals court affirmed. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Common Flood Insurance Myths and how Agents can Debunk Them

    September 17, 2014 —
    Property Casualty 360 listed four common misconceptions that many homeowners have about flood insurance. First myth on the list was, “I don’t have to worry about flooding because I don’t live near a body of water.” The author pointed out recent floods in desert areas such as Arizona and Nevada. “I don't qualify for government flood insurance because my property isn’t located in a flood plain,” made number two on the list. According to Property Casualty 360, “NFIP can provide coverage available to any homeowner, regardless of their location.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Real Case, Real Lessons: Understanding Builders’ Risk Insurance Limits

    August 12, 2024 —
    In the recent case of 5333 Mattress King LLC v. Hanover Insurance Company, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado provided significant insights into the limits of builders’ risk insurance policies. Mattress King LLC, a warehouse owner, faced a substantial loss when a subcontractor drove a crane over and damaged the warehouse’s concrete floor slab during construction. Despite having a builders’ risk insurance policy with Hanover Insurance Company, coverage was denied, leading to litigation. Applicable Policy Provisions The policy in question was a Commercial Marine/Commercial Lines Builders’ Risk insurance policy. Builders’ risk insurance is designed to cover direct physical loss to covered property during construction unless the loss is excluded or limited by the policy. Key exclusions of the policy at issue included losses caused by faulty, inadequate, or defective:
    • Planning, zoning, surveying, or development
    • Design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, or compaction
    • Materials used in construction or renovation
    • Maintenance of the covered property
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Connecticut Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade

    October 10, 2022 —
    WATERBURY, CT. — The Connecticut Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) released the 2022 Report Card for Connecticut's Infrastructure today, with five categories of infrastructure receiving an overall grade of a 'C'. That means Connecticut's infrastructure is in mediocre condition, an improvement over the 'C-' grade issued in the 2018 report card. The bump is thanks in large part to improved condition of assets across several categories and additional funding allocated for roads, bridges and rail. Connecticut is also set to receive more than $5 billion from the federal bipartisan infrastructure bill, which was passed in late 2021. However, these improvements are threatened by Connecticut's aging infrastructure – one of the oldest infrastructure networks in the U.S. – and the recent suspension of the state's already-insufficient gas tax. Civil engineers graded bridges (C), drinking water (C), rail (B), roads (D+), and wastewater (C-). "This Infrastructure Report Card shows that while Connecticut has made great progress, much more needs to be done to rebuild our state's roads and bridges and deliver essential services like clean drinking water," said U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal. "President Biden's historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is expected to invest more than $5 billion in Connecticut's infrastructure and create thousands of good paying jobs for the workforce. These federal funds, along with critically increased job training resources, will help address the challenges outlined in the Report Card. I thank the Connecticut Society of Civil Engineers for their commitment to designing and building our infrastructure, as well as all of the workers who innovate and advance the systems and structures we rely on every day." To view the report card and all five categories, visit https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/connecticut/. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule

    October 29, 2014 —
    In Colorado, the “complaint rule,” also known as the “four corners rule,” requires an insurer to provide a defense when an underlying complaint alleges any set of facts that may fall within an insurance policy. This can result in a situation where an insurer has a duty to defend although the underlying facts ultimately do not fall within the policy. In KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance, 2014 WL 4409876, District Court Judge Richard P. Matsch recognized an exception to the complaint rule. In doing so, Judge Matsch determined that a court may look beyond the complaint to judicial orders preceding the filing of the complaint to determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend. Therefore, a party may not be able to assert unsupported facts in a complaint for the sole purpose of triggering an insurance policy. KF 103 v. American Family arose out of an underlying easement dispute. In the underlying case, KF 103-CV, LLC (“KF 103”) purchased a piece of property from the Infinity Group. As a condition of the purchase agreement, Infinity Group was required to complete improvements to boundary streets and the intersection of Ski Lane and Sorpresa Lane. Several adjoining property owners (the “neighbors”) objected to the modification of the intersection because it violated an express easement (the “easement”) that provided access to their properties. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Zach McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLeroy may be contacted at McLeroy@hhmrlaw.com

    End of an Era: Los Angeles County Superior Court Closes the Personal Injury Hub

    October 24, 2022 —
    On September 21, 2022, the Los Angeles County Superior Court announced that it would start a gradual shutdown of the Personal Injury Hub, currently located at the Spring Street Courthouse. This closure will see the return of personal injury cases being venued in the district where they occurred. The Personal Injury Hub was established in 2012 as a means of consolidating personal injury cases after several civil courtrooms around the County were closed due to significant budget cuts. It first began as two courtrooms in Stanley Mosk Superior Court, then moved to the Spring Street Courthouse and ballooned to six courtrooms, each handling a case load of reportedly over 9,000 cases at times. Case Management Conferences were abolished and the parties were largely left to their own devices to move cases along. At times, slow chaos ensued. With a new and increased budget, Los Angeles Superior Court has now decided that enough is enough. Effective October 10, 2022, new personal injury cases will be filed and handled from start to finish in independent calendar courtrooms in the districts where the events giving rise to the claims occurred. Any cases properly filed in the Central District will continue to be heard in the Personal Injury Hub for now. A new Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum that reflects this change will be available on the Los Angeles County Superior Court website for use as of October 10th. Reprinted courtesy of Elizabeth A. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Angela S. Haskins, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Evans may be contacted at eevans@hbblaw.com Ms. Haskins may be contacted at ahaskins@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    January 06, 2012 —

    A homeowners’ association in Lake Oswego, Oregon has filed a $5 million lawsuit against the developers of the luxury townhomes. The homeowners of Sunset Crossing are suing Centurion Homes and Aspen Townhomes over claims that construction defects have lead to water intrusion and structural damages. The townhomes were built in 2005.

    Andy Burns, the lawyer for Phillip and Patricia Gentelmann, the owners of both Centurion Homes and Aspen Townhomes, said the Gentelmanns were “taking these allegations very seriously.” The suit says that the construction violated state and local building codes and that the firms did not repair damage caused by water intrusion.

    Read the full story…

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