BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect 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


    Wisconsin Court Enforces Breach of Contract Exclusion in E&O Policy

    New Jersey Condominium Owners Sue FEMA

    Firm Sued for Stopping Construction in Indiana Wants Case Tried in Germany

    Consultant Says It's Time to Overhaul Construction Defect Laws in Nevada

    Massachusetts Federal Court Rejects Adria Towers, Finds Construction Defects Not an “Occurrence”

    Judge Who Oversees Mass. Asbestos Docket Takes New Role As Chief Justice of Superior Court

    Don’t Sign a Contract that Doesn’t Address Covid-19 (Or Pandemics and Epidemics)

    Like Water For Chocolate: Insurer Prevails Over Chocolatier In Hurricane Sandy Claim

    Do You Have A Florida’s Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act Claim

    Drafting or Negotiating A Subcontract–Questions To Consider

    Mich. AG Says Straits of Mackinac Tunnel Deal Unconstitutional

    Broker Not Liable for Failure to Reveal Insurer's Insolvency After Policy Issued

    Changes and Extra Work – Is There a Limit?

    Construction of World's Tallest Building to Resume With New $1.9B Contract for Jeddah Tower

    140 Days Until The California Consumer Privacy Act Becomes Law - Why Aren't More Businesses Complying?

    Modern Tools Are Key to Future-Proofing the Construction Industry

    Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

    PSA: New COVID Vaccine ETS Issued by OSHA

    Render Unto Caesar: Considerations for Returning Withheld Sums

    Berger: FIGG Is Slow To Hand Over All Bridge Collapse Data

    The Increasing Trend of Caps in Construction Contracts and Negotiating Them

    Significant Ruling in PFAS Litigation Could Impact Insurance Coverage

    North Carolina Should Protect Undocumented Witnesses to Charlotte Scaffolding Deaths, Unions Say

    FAA Seeks Largest Fine Yet on Drones in Near-Miss Crackdown

    Little Known Florida Venue Statue Benefitting Resident Contractors

    Axa Unveils Plans to Transform ‘Stump’ Into London Skyscraper

    Flood-Threat Assessment Finds Danger Goes Far Beyond U.S. Homes

    How to Remove a Mechanics Lien from Your Property

    A Contractual Liability Exclusion Doesn't Preclude Insurer's Duty to Indemnify

    The Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter – A Year in Review

    Dispute Resolution Provision in Subcontract that Says Owner, Architect or Engineer’s Decision Is Final

    The Courts and Changing Views on Construction Defect Coverage

    Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

    St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc.

    Contractor Given a Wake-Up Call for Using a "Sham" RMO/RME

    Shoring of Problem Girders at Salesforce Transit Center Taking Longer than Expected

    Don’t Forget to Mediate the Small Stuff

    Comply with your Insurance Policy's Conditions Precedent (Post-Loss Obligations)

    A Murder in Honduras Reveals the Dark Side of Clean Energy

    Courthouse Reporter Series: Two Recent Cases Address Copyright Protection for Architectural Works

    Termination for Convenience Clauses: Maybe More Than Just Convenience

    Know and Meet Your Notice Requirements or Lose Your Payment Bond Claims

    Vertical vs. Horizontal Exhaustion – California Supreme Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Policyholders

    Coverage for Named Windstorm Removed by Insured, Terminating Such Coverage

    The Future of Pandemic Coverage for Real Estate Owners and Developers

    Oracle Sues Procore, Claims Theft of Trade Secrets for ERP Integration

    Order for Appraisal Affirmed After Insureds Comply with Post-Loss Obligations

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Based on New Information …”

    Appraisal May Include Cause of Loss Issues

    Cooperation and Collaboration With Government May Be on the Horizon
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Structural Failure of Precast-Concrete Span Sets Back Sydney Metro Job

    January 04, 2018 —
    Originally Published by CDJ on February 23, 2017 A key component of Australia’s biggest public transport infrastructure project—Sydney’s $6.3-billion Metro North West—is the subject of a critical and detailed technical report describing how an elevated viaduct span failed at a stitch joint between two precast segments during construction last September. Project officials say the affected span, which did not suffer a progressive collapse, has since been removed and its replacement fast-tracked to avoid further delays. Little additional detail was provided. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Chris Webb, ENR

    Umbrella Policy Must Drop Down to Assist with Defense

    May 12, 2016 —
    The court determined that an umbrella carrier was obligated to assist the general liability insurer in defending the insured. Am. States Ins. Co. v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, 2016 U.S. Dist LEXIS 38128 (E.D. Cal. March 23, 2016). Sierra Pacific Industries obtained rights to timber harvesting operation on a parcel of land in northern California. Sierra hired Howell's Forest Harvesting to perform certain timber harvest operations under the terms of a logging agreement. The logging agreement required Howell to obtain a CGL policy and to name Sierra as an additional insured. 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

    Judgment Stemming from a Section 998 Offer Without a Written Acceptance Provision Is Void

    March 22, 2021 —
    In Mostafavi Law Group, APC v. Larry Rabineau, APC (B302344, Mar. 3, 2021), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles), addressed an issue of first impression: whether the purported acceptance of a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (“section 998”) offer lacking an acceptance provision gives rise to a valid judgment. The appellate court held that a section 998 offer to compromise (“998 Offer”) without an acceptance provision is invalid and any judgment stemming from it is void. In Mostafavi Law Group, plaintiffs sued defendants for defamation per se, among other claims, which was litigated at-length over several years. Defendants served plaintiffs with a written 998 Offer, offering to settle the action for the sum of $25,000.01. The 998 Offer did not specify the manner in which plaintiffs were to accept the offer. Within the statutory time period for acceptance, plaintiffs’ counsel hand-wrote the following onto the 998 Offer: “Plaintiff Mostafavi Law Group, APC accepts the offer.” That day, plaintiffs also filed a notice of acceptance of the 998 Offer, along with proof thereof, and sent a copy to defendants. The next day, having received the notice of acceptance, defendants advised plaintiffs that they would “draft and send . . . a settlement agreement for . . . signature” before paying the settlement funds. Reprinted courtesy of Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Stevie B. Newton, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com Mr. Newton may be contacted at snewton@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Brings Professional Development Series to Their Houston Office

    May 19, 2014 —
    BHA’s Professional Development Series provides seminar attendees with a heightened level of knowledge and understanding on a wide range of subjects covering construction and construction defect litigation, tailored to the unique needs of local counsel and insureds. The next seminar in this series, THE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROCESS & CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION, will be presented on June 13th. This course has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of Texas Committee on MCLE in the amount of 1.0 credit hours, of which 0.0 credit hours will apply to legal ethics/professional responsibility credit. The seminar will be presented by Don MacGregor, general contractor and project manager, at BHA’s Houston office during the noontime hour, and luncheon will be provided. As with all BHA Professional Development activities, there is no cost for participation. Water intrusion through doors, windows and roofing systems, as well as soil and foundation-related movement, and the resultant damage associated therewith, are the triggering effects for the vast majority of homeowner complaints today and serve as the basis for most residential construction defect litigation. The graphic and animation-supported workshop/lecture activity will focus on the residential construction process, an examination of associated damages most often encountered when investigating construction defect claims, and the inter-relationships between the developer, general contractor, sub trades and design professionals. Typical plaintiff homeowner/HOA expert allegations will be examined in connection with those building components most frequently associated with construction defect and claims litigation. The workshop will examine: * Typical construction materials, and terminology associated with residential construction * The installation process and sequencing of major construction elements, including interrelationship with other building assemblies * The parties (subcontractors) typically associated with major construction assemblies and components * The various ASTM standard testing protocols utilized to field test buildings * An analysis of exposure/allocation to responsible parties   Attendance at THE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROCESS & CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION seminar will provide the attendee with: * A greater understanding of the terms and conditions encountered when dealing with common construction defect issues * A greater understanding of contractual scopes of work encountered when reviewing construction contract documents * The ability to identify, both quickly and accurately, potentially responsible parties * An understanding of damages most often associated with construction defects, as well as a greater ability to identify conditions triggering coverage * Assistance in the satisfaction of important continuing education requirements. Course #: 901290467 Sponsor #: 14152 BHA Houston Office 800 Town & Country Blvd. Suite 300 Houston, TX 77024 To register for the event, please email Don MacGregor at dmac@berthowe.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Bad Faith Claim for Investigation Fails

    January 07, 2015 —
    The insurer prevailed in summary judgment, disposing of the insured's bad faith claim based upon the investigation of the loss. Nino v. State Farm Lloyds, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163993 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2014). The insured filed a claim with State Farm for damage resulting from a hailstorm on March 29, 2012. An independent adjuster, Charles Crump, conducted an investigation on behalf of State Farm. Crump inspected the roof, where he noted prior repair to the roof, and found no covered damage to the roof as the result of the 2012 hailstorm. Crump found minimal damage to other parts of the house, totaling $2,311.75, which resulted in no payment after the deduction. Crump provided the insured with a printed copy of his damage estimate. The insured then hired a public adjuster who found damage totaling $31,991.72, including $10,051.22 in roof repairs. 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

    UK Construction Defect Suit Lost over One Word

    October 16, 2013 —
    In the UK, be careful what you tell your insurer; the Court of Appeal has upheld the legality of basis clauses. As Paul Lewis and Janetta Gibbs of Herbert Smith Freehills LLP explain, “a basis clause is a provision set out in the proposal form or in the insurance contract itself, to the effect that all or any of the answers to the questions in the proposal shall form the basis of the contract of insurance.” The catch, as they point out, is that “should any of those answers — whether material to the risk or not — prove to be untrue, the insurer may repudiate the policy and treat itself as never having been on risk.” There is a move in the UK to abolish the use of basis clauses in business insurance, but currently they are still legal. This came up in a construction defect case covering latent defects in a public housing project. The contract between the owner, Genesis Housing Association Limited, and the contractor, Time and Tide (Bedford) Ltd, required TT Bedford to indemnify Genesis if it became insolvent. In the contract with the insurer, representatives of Bedford and Genesis referred to the contractor as “TT Construction.” While the courts concluded that Bedford and Genesis were not guilty of misrepresentation or intent to defraud, they did note that neither party thought the firm’s name was “TT Construction.” Therefore, over the failure to name the builder correctly, the court found that the insurance contract was invalid. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    With VA Mechanic’s Liens Sometimes “Substantial Compliance” is Enough (but don’t count on it) [UPDATE]

    October 14, 2019 —
    Virginia mechanic’s liens are a powerful and tricky beast that in most cases require absolute precision in their preparation. However, an interesting opinion recently came out of the Virginia Supreme Court that may provide a bit of a “safe harbor” from the total form over function nature of a mechanic’s lien. In Desai, Executrix v. A.R. Design Group Inc., the Court considered a lien memorandum that had what could be described as technical flaws in the preparation of the mechanic’s lien by A. R. Design Group. The basic facts are that A. R. Design Group used the form of lien found in Va. Code Sec. 43-5 (also found as Form CC-1512 at the Virginia Judiciary website) when it recorded two lien memoranda for two pieces of property owned by a trust. Relating to one of the two properties, the memorandum failed to identify the “Owner” as the trustee of the trust. On the memoranda relating to both properties the affidavit verifying the amounts claimed did not identify the signatory as agent for A. R. Design Group, instead listing the agent as the claimant and further failed to state a date from which interest is claimed or a date on which the debt was due. Needless to say, the owner argued that each of these technical defects invalidated the memoranda and therefore they should have been released. Somewhat surprisingly the Fairfax, Virginia Circuit Court disagreed and held the liens to be valid. On appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the lower court. The held that the failure to add the word “Trustee” after Ulka Desai’s name did not invalidate the lien because the trustee had all of the rights of ownership and furthermore that naming Desai in the memorandum served the purpose of putting third parties on notice of the lien. 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

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    March 28, 2012 —

    The Duphuys of Baton Rouge Louisiana found themselves needing to argue both sides of an issue, according to the judge in Duphuy v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company. The Duphuys alleged that the drywall in their home “emits odorous gases that cause damage to air-condition and refrigerator coils, copper tubing, electrical wiring, computer wiring, and other household items.” Additionally, they reported damage to “their home’s insulation, trimwork, floors, cabinets, carpets, and other items” which they maintained were “covered under the ‘ensuing loss’ portion of their policy.”

    Their insurer declined coverage, stating that the damages were not a “direct, physical loss,” and even if they were “four different exclusions independently exclude coverage, even if such loss occurred.” The policy excludes defective building materials, latent defects, pollutants, and corrosion damage. The court noted that “ambiguities in policy exclusions are construed to afford coverage to the insured.”

    The court did determine that the Duphuys were not in “a situation where the plaintiffs caused the risk for which they now seek coverage.” The judge cited an earlier case, In re Chinese Drywall, “a case with substantially similar facts and construing the same policy” and in that case, “property damage” was determined to “include the loss of use of tangible property.” The court’s conclusion was that the Duphuys “suffered a direct, physical loss triggering coverage under their policy.”

    Unfortunately for the Duphuys, at this point the judge noted that while they had a “direct, physical loss,” the exclusions put them “in the tough predicament of claiming the drywall is neither defective nor its off-gassing corrosive or a pollutant, but nonetheless damage-causing.”

    In the earlier Chinese Drywall case, the judge found that “faulty and defective materials” “constitutes a physical thing tainted by imperfection or impairment.” The case “found the drywall served its intended purpose as a room divider and insulator but nonetheless qualified under the exclusion, analogizing the drywall to building components containing asbestos that courts have previously determined fit under the same exclusion.” In the current case, the judge concluded that the drywall was “outside the realm of coverage under the policy.”

    The court also found that it had to apply the corrosion exclusion, noting that the plaintiffs tried to evade this by stating, “simplistically and somewhat disingenuously, that the damage is not caused by corrosion but by the drywall itself.” The plaintiffs are, however, parties to another Chinese drywall case, Payton v. Knauf Gips KG, in which “they directly alleged that ‘sulfides and other noxious gases, such as those emitted from [Chinese] drywall, cause corrosion and damage to personal property.’” As the court pointed out, the Duphuys could not claim in one case that the corrosion was caused by gases emitted by the drywall and in another claim it was the drywall itself. “They hope their more ambiguous allegations will be resolved in their favor and unlock the doors to discovery.”

    The court quickly noted that “the remaining damage allegations are too vague and conclusory to construe” and permitted “exploration of the latent defect and pollution exclusions.”

    The judge concluded that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient facts to establish coverage under the ensuing loss provision, stating that the “plaintiffs must allege, at the very least, how the drywall causes damage to the trimwork, carpet, etc., not simply that it does so.” Given the court’s determinations in the case, the plaintiffs’ motion was dismissed.

    Read the court’s decision…

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