BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failure
    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


    COVID-19 Business Interruption Lawsuits Begin: Iconic Oceana Grill in New Orleans Files Insurance Coverage Lawsuit

    HHMR Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers

    Senator Ray Scott Introduced a Bill to Reduce Colorado’s Statute of Repose for Construction Defect Actions to Four Years

    2019 Promotions - New Partners at Haight

    Protecting and Perfecting Your Mechanics Lien when the Property Owner Files Bankruptcy

    Two-Part Series on Condominium Construction Defect Issues

    Documenting Contract Changes in Construction

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

    How to Mitigate Lien Release Bond Premiums with Disappearing Lien Claimants

    Colorado Homes Approved Despite being Too Close Together

    Checking the Status of your Contractor License During Contract Work is a Necessity: The Expanded “Substantial Compliance” under B&P 7031 is Here

    Ten Years After Colorado’s Adverse Possession Amendment: a brief look backwards and forwards

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2021 New York – Metro Super Lawyers®

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 45 White and Williams Lawyers

    Contractor Prevails in Part Against CalOSHA in Valley Fever Case

    Four Key Steps for a Successful Construction Audit Process

    Contractor Prevails on Summary Judgment To Establish Coverage under Subcontractor's Policy

    Pa. Contractor Pleads No Contest to Prevailing-Wage Charges, Pays Workers $20.7M

    Does a Landlord’s Violation of the Arizona Residential Landlord-Tenant Act Constitute Negligence Per Se?

    Deference Given To Procuring Public Agency Regarding Material Deviation

    Negligent Inspection Claim Against Supervising Design Professional / Consultant

    Quick Note: Lis Pendens Bond When Lis Pendens Not Founded On Recorded Instrument Or Statute

    Florida Enacts Sweeping Tort Reform Legislation, Raising Barriers to Insurance Coverage Claims

    Price Escalation Impacts

    Even with LEED, Clear Specifications and Proper Documentation are Necessary

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “You May Want an Intervention …”

    Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Strikes a Deathblow to Substantial Factor Causation in Most Cases; Is Asbestos Litigation Next?

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

    Sixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    Sometimes, Being too Cute with Pleading Allegations is Unnecessary

    “Freelance Isn’t Free” New Regulations Adopted in New York City Requiring Written Contracts with Independent Contractors

    Beyond Inverse Condemnation in Wildfire Litigation: An Oregon Jury Finds Utility Liable for Negligence, Trespass and Nuisance

    Choice of Law Provisions in Construction Contracts

    The Future of High-Rise is Localized and Responsive

    Homebuilding Still on the Rise

    Apprentices on Public Works Projects: Sometimes it’s Not What You Do But Who You Do the Work For That Counts

    Fed Inflation Goal Is Elusive as U.S. Rents Stabilize: Economy

    Is It Time to Revisit Construction Defects in Kentucky?

    California MCLE Seminar at BHA Sacramento July 11th

    When Brad Pitt Tried to Save the Lower Ninth Ward

    Conflict of Interest Accusations may Spark Lawsuit Against City and City Manager

    Landmark Contractor Licensing Case Limits Disgorgement Remedy in California

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect, Bad Faith Claims

    When Does a Contractor Legally Abandon a Construction Project?

    Workers on Big California Bridge Tackle Oil Wells, Seismic Issues

    Home Builders Wear Many Hats

    Did You Get a Notice of Mechanic’s Lien after Project Completion? Don’t Panic!

    Bridges Crumble as Muni Rates at Least Since ’60s Ignored

    Scientists found a way to make Cement Greener

    Six Reasons to Use Regular UAV Surveys on Every Construction Project
    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

    Policy's One Year Suit Limitation Does Not Apply to Challenging the Insurer's Claims Handling

    October 07, 2024 —
    The California Supreme Court held that the policy's suit limitation of one year, consistent with the statute requiring suit be file within twelve months after a loss, did not apply to claims alleging violation of the state's unfair competition law (UCL). Rosenberg-Wohl v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2024 Cal. LEXIS 3806 (Cal. July 18, 2024). Plaintiff held a homeowners policy issued by State Farm that provided coverage for all risks except those specifically excluded under the policy. The suit limitation provision provided, "Suit Against Us. No action shall be brought unless there has been compliance with the policy provision.The action must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage." On two occasions in late 2018 or early 2019, plaintiff's neighbor stumble and fell as she descended a staircase at plaintiff's residence. Plaintiff discovered that the pitch of the stairs had changed, and replacement of the stairs was required to fix the issue. She contacted State Farm on or around April 23, 2019. On August 9, 2019, plaintiff submitted a claim to State Farm, seeking reimbursement for what she paid to repair the staircase. State Farm denied the claim, advising there was no coverage and identifying several exclusions as potentially applicable. 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

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap - Guided Choice Mediation

    November 05, 2024 —
    In the September 26, 2024 edition of Division 1's Toolbox Talk Series, Clifford Shapiro presented on Guided Choice Mediation (“GCM”) and how it can lead to better outcomes in construction disputes. GCM is an approach to mediation that focuses on early and efficient dispute resolution, which prominent mediators created as a public interest project. Shapiro described his particular variant of GCM based on his experience while acknowledging that other Guided Choice Mediators’ processes may differ from his in various ways. Shapiro’s brand of GCM focuses on ensuring that parties have reasonable expectations and appropriate settlement authority prior to arriving at a mediation. Some of the strategies to help accomplish these noble goals are (i) early mediator engagement, (ii) mediator facilitation of information exchange, (iii) mediator involvement with insurance issues (particularly important in construction defect cases, especially those with multiple defendants), (iii) pre-mediation ex parte meetings, and (iv) mediator participation in risk analysis. These strategies are not typical in the more traditional/historic approach to mediation in which mediation is scheduled based on a scheduling order, mediation statements are sent to the mediator roughly a week before the scheduled mediation (and sometimes not even shared with anyone other than the mediator), and the parties speak with the mediator for the first time on the day of the mediation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas J. Mackin, Cozen O’Connor
    Mr. Mackin may be contacted at dmackin@cozen.com

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Hacking Claim Under E&O Policy

    July 25, 2022 —
    On June 9, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held, on summary judgment, that an insured was not entitled to coverage under a Professional Errors and Omissions (E&O) policy for loss allegedly resulting from a hacking incident. See Construction Fin. Admin. Servs., Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., No. 19-0020, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103042 (E.D. Pa. June 9, 2022). Applying North Carolina and Pennsylvania law, the court reasoned that: (1) coverage was barred by the policy’s unauthorized computer access, or “breach,” exclusions; and (2) the insured violated a condition in the policy that required the insurer’s consent to settlements and the violation prejudiced the insurer. The insured, Construction Financial Administration Services, Inc. (CFAS), was a third-party fund administrator for construction contractors. In April 2018, the CFAS received email requests from what it believed to be one of its clients, SWF Constructors (SWF), to disburse $1.3 million from an SWF account to a foreign company. CFAS authorized the payments, despite not having received a copy of any executed agreement between SWF and the foreign company. After the funds were disbursed, SWF advised that it had not authorized or requested the payments to the foreign company. In response, CFAS placed approximately $1.2 million of recovered and borrowed funds into the SWF disbursement account. SWF then sent a letter advising CFAS that the requests from the foreign company did not include documentation required under the contract between SWF and CFAS. It was later determined that the emails had been initiated by a fraudster who had gained unauthorized access to the sender’s email account. Reprinted courtesy of Celestine Montague, White and Williams LLP and Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP Ms. Montague may be contacted at montaguec@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    BHA Sponsors 28th Annual Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TX

    January 07, 2015 —
    Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. is proud to be joining with the State Bar of Texas, Construction Law Section, as a sponsor and exhibitor at the 28th Annual Construction Law Conference to be held March 5-6, 2015 at the San Antonio Marriott Rivercenter. With offices in San Antonio and Houston, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. (BHA) offers the experience of over 20 years of service to carriers, defense counsel, and insurance professionals as designated experts in over 5,000 cases. BHA’s staff encompasses a broad range of licensed and credentialed experts in the areas of general contracting and specialty trades, as well as architects, and both civil and structural engineers, and has provided services on behalf of developers, general contractors and sub-contractors. BHA’s experience covers the full range of construction defect litigation, including single and multi-family residential (including high-rise), institutional (schools, hospitals and government buildings), commercial, and industrial claims. BHA specializes in coverage, exposure, and delay claim analysis as well. Download the seminar brochure and register for the event... For more information on Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., you may contact Don MacGregor at dmac@berthowe.com or 210.441.8375. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut Court Clarifies a Limit on Payment Bond Claims for Public Projects

    May 15, 2023 —
    In All Seasons Landscaping, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., No. DBD-CV21-6039074-S, 2022 WL 1135703 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 4, 2022) the plaintiff, a subcontractor on a state project, commenced a lawsuit against the surety who issued a payment bond on the project two years after the subcontractor last performed any original contract work on the project. The defendant surety moved to dismiss the action based on the one-year statute of limitation in Connecticut General Statute § 49-42. The plaintiff countered that it complied with that deadline because it also performed warranty inspection work after the contract was completed and within the limitation period in section 49-42. The issue of whether warranty work or minor corrective work can extend the limitations period in section 49-42 had not previously been addressed by a Connecticut court. Section 49-42(b) governs the limitation period on payment bond claims on public projects. It provides in relevant part that “no … suit may be commenced after the expiration of one year after the last date that materials were supplied or any work was performed by the claimant.” Section 49-42 provides no guidance on what “materials were supplied or any work was performed” by the claimant means, nor is there any direct appellate-level authority in Connecticut on this issue. What is clear under well-established law in Connecticut is that the time limit within which suit on a payment bond must be commenced under Section 49-42 is not only a statute of limitation but a jurisdictional requirement establishing a condition precedent to maintenance of the action and such limit is strictly enforced. If a plaintiff cannot prove its suit was initiated within this time constraint, the matter will be dismissed by the court as untimely. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
    Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

    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

    Texas and Georgia Are Paying the Price for Sprawl

    March 15, 2021 —
    Cities in the Sun Belt South have been needing a more modern development model for a while. That's created tensions, both economically and politically, that have only accelerated during the past year's pandemic. My colleague Noah Smith wrote a column about this specific to Texas, but it's broader than any one state and it's useful to think about how we got to this point and why these issues are relevant in 2021 in a way they weren't a generation ago. There's an institutional reluctance to pivot away from the Sun Belt model defined by low taxes and cheap land because of how successful it was for key constituencies for decades. Coming out of World War II, there was a scramble nationwide to build more housing in response to soldiers coming home from war and pent-up demand for family formation. The combination of the automobile as the nation's now-dominant form of transportation and the passage of the Federal Highway Act of 1956 made building out the suburbs of less-populated southern states an irresistible growth model for politicians and economic development interests alike. If it required tax breaks and fewer regulations to lure jobs and people from northern states to accelerate the process, so be it. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Conor Sen, Bloomberg
    Mr. Sen may be contacted at csen9@bloomberg.net

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “The Jury Is Still Out”

    October 30, 2023 —
    “The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by jury for a legal claim in a civil action.” So, isn’t the law, well, the law? Well, perhaps. Some axioms to remember in contracting are that parties are typically able to agree in a contract to anything that is lawful, and that all such lawful agreements essentially become the “law” between the parties. It is on these principles that courts issue jurisprudence which becomes binding on future litigants – for example, concerning waiver of any right to trial by jury. Hence, when a second-tier subcontractor on a federal project sought a jury for a lawsuit it had against a general contractor’s sureties, the sub was successfully rebuffed by the sureties based upon a waiver to trial by jury contained in the relevant subcontract. The court noted various matters to be considered in connection with the generally enforceable jury waiver – including the conspicuousness of the waiver (and, therefore, whether the subcontractor “knowingly” agreed to the waiver), as well as the relative bargaining power of the parties to the agreement (here, the sub was self-proclaimed to be a “leader in the construction contracting field”) – and affirmed the legality of the waiver. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com