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


    Cooperating With Your Insurance Carrier: Is It a Must?

    Court Denies Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Collapse Claim

    New York Building Boom Spurs Corruption Probe After Death

    Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”

    Insured Under Property Insurance Policy Should Comply With Post-Loss Policy Conditions

    BHA Has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports NCHV and Final Salute at 2017 WCC Seminar

    DoD Issues Guidance on Inflation Adjustments for Contractors

    Finalists in San Diego’s Moving Parklet Design Competition Announced

    President Trump Nullifies “Volks Rule” Regarding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Recordkeeping Requirements

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds Lay Witness Can Provide Opinion Testimony on the Value of a Property If the Witness Had an Opportunity to Form a Reasoned Opinion

    Thanks for My 6th Year Running as a Construction Litigation Super Lawyer

    Settlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National Union

    Forget the Apple Watch. Apple’s Next Biggest Thing Isn’t for Sale

    Tips for Drafting Construction Contracts

    Massachusetts High Court to Decide if Insurers Can Recoup Defense Costs

    Don’t Just Document- Document Right!

    Recent Supreme Court Decision Could Have Substantial Impact on Builders

    Triggering Duty to Advance Costs Same Standard as Duty to Defend

    Hurry Up and Wait! Cal/OSHA Hits Pause on Emergency Temporary Standards for COVID-19 Prevention

    Newport Beach Partners Jeremy Johnson, Courtney Serrato, and Associate Joseph Real Prevailed on a Demurrer in a Highly Publicized Shooting Case!

    Request for Stay Denied in Dispute Over Coverage for Volcano Damage

    Jet Crash Blamed on Runway Construction Defect

    Court Finds That $400 Million Paid Into Abatement Fund Qualifies as “Damages” Under the Insured’s Policies

    Mixing Concrete, Like Baking a Cake, is Fraught with Problems When the Recipe is Not Followed

    Address 'Your Work' Exposure Within CPrL Policies With Faulty Workmanship Coverage

    Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

    Engineer Proposes Slashing Scope of Millennium Tower Pile Upgrade

    No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

    Ninth Circuit Resolves Federal-State Court Split Regarding Whether 'Latent' Defects Discovered After Duration of Warranty Period are Actionable under California's Lemon Law Statute

    Solar Power Inc. to Build 30-Megawatt Project in Inner Mongolia

    New Jersey Supreme Court Issue Important Decision for Homeowners and Contractors

    David A. Frenznick Awarded Multiple Accolades in the 2020 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America

    Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity Rule Gets “Trumped” by Indemnity Provision

    Florida Courts Say that Developers Are Responsible for Flooding

    General Contractor Gets Fired [Upon] for Subcontractor’s Failure to Hire Apprentices

    UK Agency Seeks Stricter Punishments for Illegal Wastewater Discharges

    Kaylin Jolivette Named LADC's Construction and Commercial Practice Chair

    New York's Highest Court Says Asbestos Causation Requires Evidence Of Sufficient Exposure To Sustain Liability

    James R. Lynch Appointed to the Washington State Capital Project Review Committee

    Payne & Fears Recognized by Best Lawyers in 2025 Best Law Firms®

    Commercial Construction Heating Up

    The Practical Distinction Between Anticipatory Breach and Repudiation and How to Deal with Both on Construction Projects

    Toll Brothers Surges on May Gain in Deposits for New Homes

    Broker for Homeowners Policy Has No Duty to Advise Insureds on Excess Flood Coverage

    Congratulations to Partner Nicole Whyte on Receiving the Marcus M. Kaufman Jurisprudence Award

    French Government Fines National Architects' Group $1.6M Over Fee-Fixing

    Cape Town Seeks World Cup Stadium Construction Collusion Damages

    Insurer's Motion in Limine to Dismiss Case for Lack of Expert Denied

    Why Metro Atlanta Is the Poster Child for the US Housing Crisis

    BP Is Not an Additional Insured Under Transocean's Policy
    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

    Floating Cities May Be One Answer to Rising Sea Levels

    August 07, 2022 —
    Thanks to climate change, sea levels are lapping up against coastal cities and communities. In an ideal world, efforts would have already been made to slow or stop the impact. The reality is that climate mitigation remains difficult, and the 40% of humanity living within 60 miles of a coast will eventually need to adapt. One option is to move inland. A less obvious option is to move offshore, onto a floating city. It sounds like a fantasy, but it could real, later if not sooner. Last year, Busan, South Korea's second-largest city, signed on to host a prototype for the world's first floating city. In April, Oceanix Inc., the company leading the project, unveiled a blueprint. Representatives of SAMOO Architects & Engineers Co., one of the floating city's designers and a subsidiary of the gigantic Samsung Electronics Co., estimate that construction could start in a "year or two," though they concede the schedule might be aggressive. “It's inevitable,” Itai Madamombe, co-founder of Oceanix, told me over tea in Busan. “We will get to a point one day where a lot of people are living on water.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Adam Minter, Bloomberg

    Court Bars Licensed Contractor From Seeking Compensation for Work Performed by Unlicensed Sub

    June 06, 2022 —
    It all started with a tree. A eucalyptus tree to be exact. What followed is one of the more important cases to be decided under Business and Professions Code section 7031 in recent years. Yes, that Section 7031. The statute variously described by the state’s courts as “harsh[ ],” draconian” and “unjust,” but, importantly, nevertheless valid. Under Section 7031, an unlicensed contractor is barred from seeking compensation for work requiring a contractor’s license. This has been called the “shield.” However, in addition to the “shield,” project owners can also employ Section 7031’s “sword,” and seek disgorgement of all monies paid to an unlicensed contractor. Section 7031’s “shield” and “sword” applies even if the project owner knew that the contractor was unlicensed. They also apply even if the unlicensed contractor’s work was flawless. And they also apply even if a contractor was unlicensed during a portion of its work. This is because, as courts have stated, Section 7031 is a consumer protection statute intended to protect the public from unlicensed contractors and applies irrespective of the equities. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Recent Opinions Clarify Enforceability of Pay-if-Paid Provisions in Construction Contracts

    May 29, 2023 —
    Several recent opinions and legislative actions have brought the controversial nature of pay-if-paid provisions into focus in early 2023. Pay-if-paid provisions are contractual mechanisms designed to shift the risk of non-payment from General Contractors to lower-tier subcontractors. In other words, pay-if-paid provisions generally do not require payment to downstream subs until after the GC or Prime are themselves paid in-full by the owner. Recent developments reflect the differing approaches taken by courts when addressing pay-if-paid provisions, ranging broadly from prohibition to full enforceability. Other jurisdictions fall somewhere in the middle, viewing such provisions with varying amounts of skepticism on the grounds heir impact on smaller downstream subs is disproportionate and unfair. Pay-if-paid provisions are often contrasted against “pay-when-paid” provisions. Pay-when-paid provisions may require payment within a specified duration but remove the upstream contractor’s payment in-full as a condition precedent. The brief discussion below will not explore pay-when-paid, no damage for delay provisions, or statutory prompt payment acts. Instead, this article serves as a primer on recent legal developments related to pay-if-paid provisions exclusively. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McKnight, Fox Rothschild LLP
    Mr. McKnight may be contacted at pmcknight@foxrothschild.com

    Multiple Occurrences Found For Claims Against Supplier of Asbestos Products

    May 07, 2015 —
    The federal district court found that various claims for bodily injury against a supplier of asbestos products arose from multiple occurrences, increasing indemnity amounts available under the policy. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45437 (N.D. Ohio April 7, 2015). Mahoning Valley Supply Company (MVS) was sued by numerous claimants who alleged that they had been injured by asbestos-containing products manufactured by third parties, but supplied by MVS. The claimants alleged exposure to asbestos fibers at a variety of job sites, on numerous dates, and under a variety of conditions. Two insurers shared defense and indemnity costs. In 2013, Continental informed MVS that the three policies issued to MVS were nearly exhausted. Therefore, the parties disputed whether MVS' asbestos claims arose out of a single "occurrence" rather than multiple occurrences. The policies defined "occurrence" as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the 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

    4 Lessons Contractors Can Learn From The COVID-19 Crisis

    May 25, 2020 —
    At the start of 2020, the industry outlook in construction was positive. Many contractors were optimistic about what the year had in store for construction businesses in terms of profit, expansion of operations, and even payment issues. That was until the COVID-19 pandemic put a wrench in everyone’s business plans. There’s no question about how huge the impact of the novel coronavirus crisis is on business operations. With the federal and state governments implementing strict measures to slow down the spread of COVID-19, construction businesses are experiencing significant delays and disruptions in their operations. Because of the lockdowns and stay-at-home orders, many construction projects are forced to postpone operations or, worse, cancel them altogether. Nevertheless, there are lessons in the COVID-19 pandemic that contractors can learn. Here are some of them. 1. Contractors need to be proactive in meeting preliminary notice requirements Cash is tight in times of crisis. As the economy comes to a standstill, construction businesses will need to deal with decreasing profits. They may even have to dip into their own cash reserves to cover fixed expenses and their employees’ salaries. In times like this, it is crucial that contractors perform due diligence in protecting their right to get paid. The first step in doing so is to prepare preliminary notices. These notices are an important step in the mechanics lien process and without them, chances contractors will not be able to recover the unpaid compensation for the materials they furnished and services they rendered. 2. Force majeure provisions are crucial parts of a contract The novel coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the importance of force majeure provisions in construction contracts. Before the COVID-19 crisis hit business operations, force majeure provisions were typically considered as simple boilerplate clauses. This means they were just there as a standard part of contracts. However, the same force majeure clauses, as well as impossibility of performance provisions, have become crucial in the current crisis. As many construction businesses experience difficulties with their operations, they may not be able to fulfill their contractual responsibilities. The said clauses can give contractors a much-needed reprieve. As the current crisis continues, contractors should review contracts as these provisions can give them more time to finish the job. And in the hopefully near future when the crisis ends, business owners should review the contract creation process and ensure that these clauses included in contracts will be able to address the impact of situations similar to COVID-19. 3. Having solid internal communication is crucial There’s a lot of uncertainty with the COVID-19 situation. With work operations temporarily stopping, the circumstances can be quite stressful for employees. There will be doubts and fears within your workforce on whether work will be back to normal as soon as possible or not. Keeping your workforce well-informed and trusting of your organization is crucial, especially in this time of uncertainty. That is why it is paramount that you have a solid internal communication infrastructure to disseminate information about the current work situation and the next steps that the business will take. In addition, only through proper employee communication can the implementation of social distancing and hygiene measures be effective. 4. Contractors can benefit from flexible work arrangements As the coronavirus crisis has made it necessary for everyone to stay at home, construction businesses should look for ways to continue operations. Expanded work arrangements such as work-from-home setups may just be the solution. Of course, most of the physical work that is needed to be done on-site will be impossible to do at home, but office-based functions such as sales, client relations, design, and administrative roles can still continue. This can even have additional benefits to productivity and health. And when the crisis is over, business owners should consider incorporating these work arrangements into their operations permanently. The COVID-19 crisis is not showing any sign of stopping soon, and even when it ends, it will take quite a long time before we can be back to business as usual. As the crisis continues, however, business owners should take the situation as a learning experience. Once the COVID-19 crisis is over, it will take a long time for things to go back to normal. In fact, things may not end up going back to the way they were before and businesses will need to adapt to the new normal. However the situation evolves, business owners should take this opportunity to learn new things and maintain resilience in trying times. About the Author: Patrick Hogan is the CEO of Handle.com, where they build software that helps contractors, subcontractors, and material suppliers with late payments. Handle.com also provides funding for construction businesses in the form of invoice factoring, material supply trade credit, and mechanics lien purchasing. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

    November 12, 2019 —
    On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context. The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.” Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    William Lyon to Acquire RSI Communities

    February 22, 2018 —
    According to the article “William Lyon Agrees to Buy RSI Communities $460 million deal plants Lyon in Texas and adds to Inland Empire land holdings” published on the website Builder, the Newport Beach home builder is purchasing the Southern California and Texas home builder. This will be Lyon Homes’ first venture in the state of Texas. RSI Communities works within both San Antonio and Austin, Texas as well as Southern California and the Inland Empire. It was founded by Todd Palmaer, a home building expert and Ron Simon, a building products expert and Newport Beach businessman. First time home buyers have been RSI’s main target. President and CEO of RSI, Tod Palmaer is optimistic about the acquisition “We are delighted to have our company join the William Lyon Homes organization. We have a great deal of confidence in the William Lyon Homes platform and its executive management team, and believe that its acquisition of RSI Communities will add to Lyon’s continued success in its current and new markets.” Pat Donahue who has almost 30 years of experience in home building, will serve as President to the Inland Empire Division. John Bohnen, RSI’s present Chief Operating Officer, will be the regional president in Texas. Mr. Bohnen has previously held executive positions with numerous home builders. William Lyon’s president and CEO Mark R. Zaist is excited about adding RSI’s key players to their team, and had this to say about the purchase. “The acquisition of RSI represents our most significant acquisition since our entry into Portland and Seattle with the Polygon Northwest Homes acquisition in 2014 and furthers our strategy of building in the strongest markets in the Western U.S., while also strengthening our pipeline in Southern California, as we continue our mission of being the premier Western Regional home builder.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    June 30, 2011 —

    One June 27, the US Court of Appeals has rejected an appeal from Mid-Continent Casualty Company. Mid-Continent had appealed a summary judgment granted to Titan Construction Company.

    Titan Construction had built condominiums for the Williamsburg Condominium Association, which later filed a construction defect lawsuit against Titan and other defendants. Titan settled with the developer, Kennydale, assigning its rights against Mid-Continent to Kennydale. Mid-Continent filed suit, claiming that “it had no obligation to indemnify or defend Titan, Kennydale, or various other defendants.” The district court found in favor of Mid-Continent, granting a summary judgment, concluding that Titan’s insurance covered “occurrences,” and none had taken place.

    On appeal, the court found that the negligent construction of the condominiums constituted an “occurrence” The case was remanded and the district court this time found in favor of Titan, “concluding that Mid-Continent failed to raise a triable issue as to the applicability of the remaining policy exclusions.

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has now affirmed that decision and Titan’s summary judgment stands.

    Read the court’s decision…

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