BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety 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


    The Future Looks Bright for Construction in 2015

    Brookfield Wins Disputed Bid to Manage Manhattan Marina

    Construction Defects as Occurrences, Better Decided in Law than in Courts

    Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Act Violations

    Toronto Skyscraper With $1.2 Billion of Debt Has Been Put in Receivership

    Exclusion for Construction of Condominiums Includes Faulty Construction of Retaining Wall

    Oregon Condo Owners Make Construction Defect Claim

    The Unthinkable Has Happened. How Should Contractors Respond?

    Keeping Detailed Records: The Best Defense to Constructive Eviction

    EEOC Sues Whiting-Turner Over Black Worker Treatment at Tennessee Google Project

    Edgewater Plans to Sue Over Pollution During Veterans Field Rehab

    White and Williams Celebrates 125th Anniversary

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Alabama Still “An Outlier” on Construction Defects

    New York Court Permits Asbestos Claimants to Proceed Against Insurers with Buyout Agreements

    University of California Earthquake Report Provides List of Old Concrete Buildings in LA

    Security on Large Construction Projects. The Payment Remedy You Probably Never Heard of

    California Supreme Court Upholds Precondemnation Procedures

    GIS and BIM Integration Will Transform Infrastructure Design and Construction

    Deadline Nears for “Green Performance Bond” Implementation

    Virtual Jury Trials of Construction Disputes: The Necessary Union of Both Sides of the Brain

    Attorney Writing Series on Misconceptions over Construction Defects

    Diggerland, UK’s Construction Equipment Theme Park, is coming to the U.S.

    A UK Bridge That Is a Lesson on How to Build Infrastructure

    Phoenix Flood Victims Can’t Catch a Break as Storm Nears

    Drawing the Line: In Tennessee, the Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Apply to Contracts for Services

    Is Settling a Bond Claim in the Face of a Seemingly Clear Statute of Limitations Defense Bad Faith?

    Thoughts on New Pay if Paid Legislation

    COVID-19 Response: California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board Implements Sweeping New Regulations to Prevent COVID-19 in the Workplace

    Be Proactive, Not Reactive, To Preserve Force Majeure Rights Regarding The Coronavirus

    The Insurance Coverage Debate on Construction Defects Continues

    Haight’s Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Southern California Rising Stars

    Florida Extends Filing Time for Claims Subject to the Statute of Repose

    Massachusetts SJC Clarifies “Strict Compliance” Standard in Construction Contracts

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Rated as One of the Top 50 in a Survey of Construction Law Firms in the United States

    PSA: New COVID Vaccine ETS Issued by OSHA

    Substitute Materials — What Are Your Duties? What Are Your Risks? (Law Note)

    Top 10 Cases of 2019

    Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned

    New Jersey Court Upholds Registration Requirement for Joint Ventures Bidding on Public Works Contracts

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Super Lawyers in 2016

    Neighbor Allowed to Remove Tree Roots on Her Property That Supported Adjoining Landowners’ Two Large Trees With Legal Immunity

    Power Point Presentation on Nautilus v. Lexington Case

    Insurer's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Construction Defect Claim Rejected

    New Case Alert: California Federal Court Allows Policy Stacking to Cover Continuous Injury

    Risky Business: Contractual Protections in the 'New Normal'

    You Cannot Arbitrate Claims Not Covered By The Arbitration Agreement

    Los Angeles Seeks Speedier Way to Build New Affordable Homes

    Pacing in Construction Scheduling Disputes

    Bad Faith in the First Party Insurance Context
    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

    Client Alert: Release of Liability Agreement Extinguishes Duty of Ordinary Care

    February 05, 2015 —
    On January 27, 2015, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, in Eriksson v. Nunnink (Case No. E057158), held a release of liability between Decedent and Defendant was enforceable as a defense to the Decedent's Parents' wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED") claims. In Eriksson, the Court concluded that on the basis of the signed release agreement, Defendant did not owe a duty of care to Decedent and thus could only be liable for Decedent's death if caused by the Defendant's gross negligence. The Court held that Plaintiffs failed to establish gross negligence and affirmed the lower court's judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin and Whitney L. Stefko Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fire Tests Inspire More Robust Timber Product Standard

    March 22, 2018 —
    Based on recent fire test results, mass timber groups have adjusted product certification standards to require the use of cross-laminated timber with structural adhesives tested to demonstrate better fire performance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record
    Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    November 18, 2011 —

    The court determined that the Faulty Workmanship Exclusion only barred coverage for damages arising from problems with the property under construction itself and not to losses incurred to correct damage from accidents during construction. See 1756 First Associates, LLC v. Continental Casualty Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117100 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2011).

    A tower crane collapsed at the construction site, causing damage. First Associates tendered the claim to its insurer, Continental. Continental reimbursed First Associates for certain costs arising from damage to and cleanup of the construction site and building stemming from the crane collapse. Continental refused, however, to reimburse First Associates for costs associated with construction delays resulting from the collapse.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Hurricane Claim Cannot Survive Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    May 15, 2023 —
    The court upheld the insurer's denial of coverage for hurricane damage caused by storm surge. Heritage Motorcoach Resort & Marina Condominium Association, Inc v. Axis Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58931 (S.D. Ala. April 4, 2023). Heritage operated a resort with a marina, dock and clubhouse. Hurricane Sally caused damage to the property. Heritage submitted a claim to its insurer, Axis. Axis investigated the claim. One investigator reported that the marina structures sustained damage caused by storm tide forces, wave action and debris impact. He opined that the marina structures did not sustain wind damage. When deposed, he testified that there was a combination of vessels and wave action causing damage to the marina. A second investigator found that the storm drove boats and other debris into the marina area causing much of the damage. 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

    California Courts Call a “Time Out” During COVID-19 –New Emergency Court Rules on Civil Litigation

    May 04, 2020 —
    “We are at this point truly with no guidance in history, law, or precedent. To say that there is no playbook is a gross understatement of the situation.” -Chief Justice and Chair of the California Judicial Council, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Seeking to sustain essential court services while balancing weighty considerations, including litigants’ due process rights, access to justice, and stringent health and safety orders, the California Judicial Council has adopted Emergency Rules in response to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). While many of the Emergency Rules focus on criminal and juvenile dependency matters, this update highlights the Emergency Rules immediately impacting civil litigation in California state courts. The following Emergency Rules remain in effect until 90 days after the Governor lifts the state of emergency or the rule is amended or repealed by the Judicial Council: Tolling of Statutes of Limitation in Civil Actions Effective April 6, 2020, the statutes of limitation (the time period in which to bring a claim) for all civil causes of action is tolled until such time as the rule is no longer in effect. The impact of this rule is that it provides plaintiffs with more time to bring claims and extends the time period that defendants may face legal action for alleged violations of the law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tara C. Dudum, Newmeyer Dillion
    Ms. Dudum may be contacted at tara.dudum@ndlf.com

    Court Finds That SIR Requirements are Not Incorporated into High Level Excess Policies and That Excess Insurers’ Payment of Defense Costs is Not Conditioned on Actual Liability

    April 22, 2019 —
    In Deere & Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (No. A145170, filed 2/25/19), a California appeals court held that the insured was not required to pay additional self-insured retentions (SIRs) in order to trigger higher level excess coverage because the retained limits applicable to the first layer of coverage did not also apply to the higher-layer excess policies. In Deere, the insured was sued for injuries from alleged exposure to asbestos-containing assemblies used in Deere machines. In a declaratory relief action against its umbrella and excess insurers, the case was tried on: (1) whether the higher-layer excess policies were triggered once the first-layer excess policy limits, which were subject to an SIR paid by Deere, had been exhausted; and (2) whether the insurers’ indemnity obligation extended to Deere’s defense costs incurred in asbestos claims that had been dismissed. The trial court found in favor of the insurers, concluding that the retained limits in the first layer of coverage also applied to the higher-layer excess, which was not triggered until Deere paid additional SIRs. The court also concluded that the insurers were not obligated to pay defense costs when underlying cases were dismissed without payment to a claimant either by judgment or settlement. 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

    Carwash Prosecutors Seek $1.6 Billion From Brazil Builders

    February 26, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- Some of Brazil’s biggest building companies were targeted for the first time in an investigation into alleged kickbacks at Petroleo Brasileiro SA, with prosecutors seeking 4.47 billion reais ($1.6 billion) in compensation. Federal prosecutors in Parana state accused Camargo Correa, Mendes Junior, OAS, Galvao Engenharia, Grupo Engevix and Sanko of diverting public funds and called for them to be banned from new state contracts, the prosecutors said in an e-mailed statement Friday. The allegations -- called acao de improbidade in Portuguese, or misconduct action -- mark the first time companies have been singled out in connection with Brazil’s biggest-ever corruption scandal, in which Petrobras executives are accused of accepting bribes from a cartel of builders. Until now, only individuals have been accused of wrongdoing. Executives from companies including OAS and Camargo Correa have been jailed since November as part of the first sweep against contractors in the case known as Carwash. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sabrina Valle, Bloomberg
    Ms. Valle may be contacted at svalle@bloomberg.net

    Texas Federal District Court Dismisses COVID-19 Claim

    October 25, 2020 —
    Judge Ezra, formerly on the bench in Hawaii, dismissed a COVID-19 claim pursued by a Texas policy holder. Diesel Barbershop, LLC v. State Farm Lloyds, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147276 (W.D. Texas Aug. 13, 2020). Local and state officials in Texas issued shutdown orders in March 2020 due to the spread of the cornavirus. All non-essential businesses, including the insureds' barbershop businesses, were ordered closed from April 2, 2020 until April 30, 2020. The insureds submitted a claim for business interruption and civil authority coverage to their carrier, State Farm. The claim was denied based on the policy's exclusion for loss caused by enforcement of ordinance or law, virus, and consequential losses. For Civil Authority coverage, State Farm contended the policy required that there by physical damage within one mile of the described property and that the damage be the result of a Covered Cause of Loss, which, State Farm asserted, a virus was not. The insureds sued and State Farm moved to dismiss. The court noted cases in which courts had found physical loss even without tangible destruction to the covered property. Yet, the court found that the line of cases requiring tangible injury to property were more persuasive. Therefore, the court found that the insureds failed to plead a direct physical loss. 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