BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineer
    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


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

    Appeals Court Overruled Insured as Additional Insured on Subcontractor’s Commercial General Liability Policy

    Jarred Reed Named to the National Black Lawyers’ “Top 40 Under 40” List for Second Consecutive Year

    William Lyon Homes Unites with Polygon Northwest Company

    eRent: Construction Efficiency Using Principles of the Sharing Economy

    ADP Says Payrolls at Companies in U.S. Increase 200,000

    ABC Safety Report: Construction Companies Can Be Nearly 6 Times Safer Than the Industry Average Through Best Practices

    San Diego’s NFL Stadium Dream Counts on Munis for Chargers’ Home

    Conditional Judgment On Replacement Costs Awarded

    Texas Jury Finds Presence of SARS-CoV-2 Virus Causes “Physical Loss or Damage” to Property, Awards Over $48 Million to Baylor College of Medicine

    New York Revises Retainage Requirements for Private Construction Contracts: Overview of the “5% Retainage Law”

    The Final Nail: Ongoing Repairs Do Not Toll the Statute of Repose

    Marlena Ellis Makes The Lawyers of Color Hot List of 2022

    Unrelated Claims Against Architects Amount to Two Different Claims

    Retainage on Pennsylvania Public Contracts

    As the Term Winds Down, Several Important Regulatory Cases Await the U.S. Supreme Court

    Contract Construction Smarts: Helpful Provisions for Dispute Resolution

    From the Ground Up

    Blackstone Said to Sell Boston Buildings for $2.1 Billion

    Roof Mounted Solar Panels: Lower Your Risk of Fire

    Washington Supreme Court Interprets Ensuing Loss Exception in All-Risk Property Insurance Policy

    Georgia Court Clarifies Landlord Liability for Construction Defects

    TRI Pointe Merges with Weyerhaeuser’s Real Estate Company

    The Economic Loss Rule: From Where Does the Duty Arise?

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

    Tesla’s Solar Roof Pricing Is Cheap Enough to Catch Fire

    Massachusetts High Court: Attorney's Fee Award Under Consumer Protection Act Not Covered by General Liability Insurance Policy

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

    Allegations That COVID-19 Was Physically Present and Altered Property are Sufficient to Sustain COVID-19 Business Interruption Suit

    In Oregon Construction Defect Claims, “Contract Is (Still) King”

    Zombie Foreclosures Plaguing Various Cities in the U.S.

    How Many Homes have Energy-Efficient Appliances?

    Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound to Arbitration Award

    Addressing Safety on the Construction Site

    The Sensible Resurgence of the Multigenerational Home

    How to Remove a Mechanics Lien from Your Property

    Insurer's Withheld Discovery Must be Produced in Bad Faith Case

    A Look at Trending Legislative Changes Impacting Workers' Comp

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds that Subrogation Waiver Does Not Violate Statute Prohibiting Limitation on Tort Liability in Construction Contracts

    Construction Up in Northern Ohio

    Nevada Supreme Court Clarifies the Litigation Waiver of the One-Action Rule

    2018 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Continuous Injury Trigger Applied to Property Loss

    Court Addresses HOA Attempt to Restrict Short Term Rentals

    Guidance for Construction Leaders: How Is the Americans With Disabilities Act Applied During the Pandemic?

    California Appellate Court Confirms: Additional Insureds Are First-Class Citizens

    Colorado Homebuyers Must be in Privity of Contract with Developer to Assert Breach of Implied Warranty of Suitability

    Five Construction Payment Issues—and Solutions

    DC District Court Follows Ninth Circuit’s Lead Dismissing NABA’s Border Wall Case
    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

    Formaldehyde-Free Products for Homes

    March 05, 2015 —
    Builder Magazine reported that builders are “making indoor air quality a major concern,” including choosing healthier, formaldehyde-free products. Builder explained the problems with certain chemicals: “Formaldehyde and other VOCs, most frequently found in wood products, finishes, and paints, have been chief among the pollutants targeted for potentially dangerous health effects, such as respiratory issues and irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, and skin.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Litigation Group Listed in U.S. News Top Tier

    November 06, 2013 —
    In the U.S. News & World Reports annual ranking of law firms, the construction litigation practice of Williams Mullen was included in the nationwide first-tier rankings. Additionally, their Hampton Roads, Virginia office was in the Metropolitan first-tier ranking for a variety of practices, including construction lititgation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurance Law Alert: Ambiguous Producer Agreement Makes Agent-Broker Status a Jury Question

    September 10, 2014 —
    In Douglas v. Fidelity National Ins. (No. A137645; filed 8/29/14), a California appeals court held that it was a jury question whether a retail insurance service with limited binding authority should be deemed a broker or an agent for the purpose of determining if application misrepresentations would void coverage. In Douglas, the homeowners needed insurance for a house they had used as a group home. They sought coverage from Cost-U-Less, which provided personal lines insurance from, among others, Fidelity National Insurance Company. According to the couple’s wife, she went to a Cost-U-Less office where she answered application questions from a person on the telephone, who was later identified as an employee of another company, InsZone. InsZone had a producer contract with Fidelity. In practice, InsZone would be contacted by Cost-U-Less via telephone, at which point an InsZone employee would verbally solicit information from the client, with the information being entered into a computer by the InsZone employee and then transmitted electronically to Fidelity. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

    March 16, 2017 —
    Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWL Inc. (2017) 2017 WL 371379 COURT OF APPEAL EXTENDS GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. v. MIDTEC, INC., HOLDING THAT CIVIL CODE §936 CREATES A NEGLIGENCE STANDARD FOR CLAIMS AGAINST MATERIAL SUPPLIERS BROUGHT UNDER SB800. The Fourth District California Court of Appeal recently published its decision Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWI, Inc. (2017) 2017 WL 371379, holding that claims against a material supplier under SB800 (Civil Code §895 and §936) require proof that the SB800 violation was caused by the supplier's negligence or breach of contract. Civil Code §936 states in relevant part, that it applies "to general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals to the extent that the general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals caused, in whole or in part, a violation of a particular standard as the result of a negligent act or omission or a breach of contract .... [T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any general contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, individual product manufacturer, or design professional with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply." Acqua Vista Homeowners Association (the "HOA") sued MWI, a supplier of Chinese pipe used in the construction of the Acqua Vista condominium development. The HOA's complaint asserted a single cause of action for violation of SB800 standards, and alleged that defective cast iron pipe was used throughout the building. After trial, the trial court entered a judgment against MWI in the amount of $23,955,796.28, reflecting the jury's finding that MWI was 92% responsible for the HOA's damages. MWI filed a motion for a directed verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the grounds that the HOA had failed to present any evidence that MWI had caused an SB800 violation as a result of its negligence or breach of contract, and had therefore failed to prove negligence and causation as required by SB800, citing to Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc.(2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194. The trial court denied both motions, relying on the last sentence of Civil Code §936, which states in part, "[T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any ... material supplier ... with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply." The Court of Appeal reversed and ordered the trial court to enter judgment in favor of MWI. The Court of Appeal relied on the legislative history of S8800 and Greystone, which held that the first sentence of Civil Code §936 contains an "explicit adoption of a negligence standard" for S8800 claims against product manufacturers. The Court of Appeal reasoned that since §936 treats product manufacturers and material suppliers identically, the holding of Greystone must equally apply to material suppliers. Because the complaint did not state a common law cause of action for strict liability, the HOA was required to prove that the damages were caused by MWI' s negligence or breach of contract. Although, the Court of Appeal found that while the HOA's evidence may have supported a finding that the manufacturer of the leaking pipes was negligent, the HOA had not provided any evidence that MWI, the supplier, had failed to supply the type of pipe ordered, acted unreasonably in failing to detect any manufacturing defects present in the pipe, or damaged it during transportation. Accordingly, the HOA could not prove that the alleged S8800 violation was caused, in whole or in part, by MWI' s negligence, omission, or breach of contract. In light of the decision, homeowner and associations that allege only violations of SB800 standards without asserting a common law cause of action for strict liability cannot prevail by simply producing evidence of a violation, and are required to prove that violation was caused by the negligent act or omission, or breach of contract, of the defendant contractor, material supplier, and/or product manufacturer. Reprinted courtesy of Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq., Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Trial Date Discussed for Las Vegas HOA Takeover Case

    February 04, 2014 —
    Jeff German of the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that Justice Department attorneys filed papers January 28th demanding the trial involving 11 defendants charged in a scheme to take over the Las Vegas Valley homeowners associations to be held no later than September 2nd. The prosecutors claimed “they have gone out of their way to ease the burden on the defense as they have turned over mountains of evidence in the past year.” However, the defense attorneys allege that they need “at least a year and likely more time” to go through the “more than 3 million pages of documents” and to create a trial strategy, according to German. The defense “asked for an initial late January 2015 trial date.” The case involves charges against “lawyers, former police officers and corrupt board members” for “packing HOA boards to gain legal and construction defect contracts for themselves.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Bad Faith in the First Party Insurance Context

    December 15, 2016 —
    In a previous article I discussed bad faith when it comes to an insurance claim. Recently, in Barton v. Capitol Preferred Insurance Co., Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2736b (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), the court discussed bad faith in the first-party insurance context (i.e., a property / homeowners insurance policy). In this case, homeowners, as the insured, sued their homeowners insurance carrier for sinkhole coverage. The homeowner filed a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (also known as a Civil Remedy Notice) against their insurer with the Florida Department of Insurance in accordance with Florida Statute s. 624.155. This Civil Remedy Notice is a prerequisite to initiating such a bad faith claim; the notice specifies the statutory violations committed by the insurer and gives the insurer 60 days to cure the violation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

    California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Injured Worker Despite Contractor's Exclusion

    August 05, 2024 —
    The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's finding that the policy covered a worker's injuries despite the Contractor's Exclusion. Cal. Spec. Insulation . Allied Work Surplus Lines, Ins. Co., 2024 Cal. App. LEXIS 317 (Cal. Ct. App. May 17, 2024). Air Control Systems, Inc. was retained by a property owner to perform improvement work on a building. Air Control retained California Specialty Insulation, Inc. (CSI) to install duct insulation. Jason Standiford, an Air Control employee, sure CSI, asserting negligence for injuries he suffered when he fell 16 to 20 feet after. A CSI employee drove a scissor lift into a ladder he was standing on. CSI was insured through a commercial general liability policy from Allied World. The policy included an endorsement titled "Bodily Injury to Any Employee or Temporary Worker of Contractors Exclusion." The Contractor Exclusion state the policy did not apply to "'Bodily injury' . . . to any 'employee' or 'ten,poary work' of any contractor or subcontractor arising out of in or the course of the rendering or performing services of any kind or nature by such contractor or subcontractor." Neither the endorsement nor the policy defined the term "contractor." 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

    Part of the Whole: Idaho District Court Holds Economic Loss Rule Bars Tort Claims Related to Water Supply Line that was Part of Home Purchase

    October 03, 2022 —
    In Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill. v. LSP Prods. Grp., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139566, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho (District Court) considered whether the plaintiff’s tort claims against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective toilet water supply line were barred by the economic loss rule. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that, since the supply line was a part of the home when the plaintiff’s insureds purchased it, the plaintiff was barred by the economic loss rule from bringing tort claims against the manufacturer. The District Court granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion, ruling that the supply line was a part of the home, which was the subject of the transaction, at the time it was purchased. Thus, the District Court held that the economic loss rule barred the plaintiff’s tort claims. In 2012, Melissa Norris and Richard Meyers (collectively, the Homeowners) purchased a newly built home in Eagle, Idaho. In 2016, a toilet supply line in one of the bathrooms began leaking, causing water damage to the home as well as to window blinds, an oven and dishwasher. The Homeowners also incurred a loss of rental income. The Homeowners submitted a claim to Safeco Insurance Company (Insurer), their property insurance carrier, who ultimately covered the Homeowners’ losses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com