BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete 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


    Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Preclude Coverage

    Insurance Firm Defends against $22 Million Claim

    New Plan Submitted for Explosive Demolition of Old Tappan Zee Bridge

    Colorado Court of Appeals Confirms Senior Living Communities as “Residential Properties” for Purposes of the Homeowner Protection Act

    Million-Dollar U.S. Housing Loans Surge to Record Level

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

    Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Dorian

    A Court-Side Seat – Case Law Update (February 2022)

    Montana Federal District Court Finds for Insurer in Pollution Coverage Dispute

    Unfortunate Event Test Leads to Three Occurrences

    Construction Defect Headaches Can Be Avoided

    Rulemaking to Modernize, Expand DOI’s “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment Rules Expected Fall 2023

    Bid Protests: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Redeux)

    Three White and Williams Lawyers Named Top Lawyers by Delaware Today

    Energy Efficiency Ratings Aren’t Actually Predicting Energy Efficiency

    No Coverage for Installation of Defective Steel Framing

    Georgia Court Rules that Separate Settlements Are Not the End of the Matter

    Construction Delays: Which Method Should Be Used to Calculate Delay?

    Quick Note: COVID-19 Claim – Proving Causation

    Contractor Sues Golden Gate Bridge District Over Suicide Net Project

    Surety's Settlement Without Principal's Consent Is Not Bad Faith

    Contractor Convicted of Additional Fraud

    Become Familiar With Your CGL Policy Exclusions to Ensure You Are Covered: Wardcraft v. EMC.

    Not So Unambiguous: California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Additional Insured

    Replevin Actions: What You Should Know

    The Right to Repair Act Isn’t Out for the Count, Yet. Homebuilders Fight Back

    Court Slams the Privette Door on Independent Contractor’s Bodily Injury Claim

    I.M. Pei, Architect Who Designed Louvre Pyramid, Dies at 102

    A Compilation of Quirky Insurance Claims

    Wage Theft Investigations and Citations in the Construction Industry

    Netherlands’ Developer Presents Modular Homes for Young Professionals

    Lake Texoma, Texas Condo Case may go to Trial

    Is A Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound by A Default or Default Judgment Against Its Principal?

    Tenants Who Negligently Cause Fires in Florida Beware: You May Be Liable to the Landlord’s Insurer

    Overview of New Mexico Construction Law

    Home-Rentals Wall Street Made Say Grow or Go: Real Estate

    More Fun with Indemnity and Construction Contracts!

    Tips for Drafting Construction Contracts

    CDJ’s #4 Topic of the Year: KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County

    Texas Condo Construction Defect Code Amended

    Public Adjuster Cannot Serve As Disinterested Appraiser

    Resolving Condominium Construction Defect Warranty Claims in Maryland

    Protecting Your Business From Liability Claims Stemming From COVID-19 Exposure

    But Wait There’s More: Preserving Claims on Commonwealth Projects

    London Shard Developer Wins Approval for Tower Nearby

    GRSM Named Among 2025 “Best Law Firms” by Best Lawyers

    Homebuilding Design Goes 3D

    Court Holds That Self-Insured Retentions Exhaust Vertically And Awards Insured Mandatory Prejudgment Interest in Stringfellow Site Coverage Dispute

    Going Digital in 2019: The Latest Technology for a Bright Future in Construction

    California Court of Appeal Adopts Horizontal Exhaustion Rule
    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

    Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Clarifies Pennsylvania’s Strict Liability Standard

    January 14, 2015 —
    In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 6474923 (Pa. Nov. 19, 2014), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania discussed the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s products liability law and, overturning prior precedent, clarified the law. In particular, the Court, overturned Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company, 480 Pa. 547, 391 A.2d 1020 (1978), clarified the role of the judge and the jury in products liability cases and settled the question of whether Pennsylvania would adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability §§ 1, et. seq. (Third Restatement) as the standard for deciding Pennsylvania products liability cases. The Tincher decision makes clear that Pennsylvania will continue to apply § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (Second Restatement) in products liability cases and that jurors, not the court, will decide the question of whether a product is in a defective condition. Plaintiffs may prove that a product is defective using either the consumer expectations test or the risk-utility test. Background The Tincher case arose out a fire that occurred at the home of Terrance and Judith Tincher on June 20, 2007. The Tinchers alleged that the fire started when a lightning strike near their home caused a small puncture in corrugated steel tubing (CSST) carrying natural gas to a fireplace located in their home. The defendant, Omega Flex, Inc. (Omega Flex) manufactured the CSST. Reprinted courtesy of William Doerler, White and Willams LLP and Edward Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Coverage for Restoring Aesthetic Uniformity

    December 10, 2015 —
    The court found there was no coverage regarding aesthetic uniformity between new materials installed after water damage occurred and the rest of the building. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York v. The Towers of Quayside No. 4 Condominium Assoc., Case No. 15-CV-20056-King (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Fla., Nov. 5, 2015). The insured's high rise condominium suffered water damage when a valve on the air conditioning unit damaged the drywall, carpeting, baseboards, insulation and wallpaper in the east hallways of the eleventh floor and the floors below. Floors three through twenty-five had a uniform appearance by design with respect to the carpet, wallpaper, and woodwork in the common area hallways. The insured submitted a claim under its property policy with Great American. A payment of $170,291.84 was made for damage to the east hallways of the eleventh floor and the floors below. The insured sought coverage to repair or replace undamaged carpeting, wallpaper, baseboards, and woodwork in (1) the west hallways and elevator landings of the eleventh floor and the floors below and in (2) floors twelve through twenty-five.The insured contended that the loss of aesthetic uniformity devalued the building and constituted a loss to the building. 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

    Seattle Independent Contractor Ordinance – Pitfalls for Unwary Construction Professionals

    October 09, 2023 —
    Chapter 14.34 of the Seattle Municipal Code is a relatively new ordinance that can affect the parties to a construction contract for work performed within the City of Seattle’s city limits. The Independent Contractor Protection Ordinance (“ICPO”) was enacted to provide self-employed persons, or entities composed of not more than one person, regardless of corporate form, recourse for timely payment for work performed. The ICPO applies to contracts of $600[i] or more between an independent contractor and a hiring entity where the work, in whole or in part, is known to be performed within the City of Seattle’s city limits.[ii] The ICPO cannot be waived by parties to a contract.[iii] Historically, the primary legal recourse for non-payment or late payment for work performed under a contract involves an expensive breach of contract action, and one reason the ICPO was enacted was to give greater protection to a growing number of Washington independent contractors who report problems with timely and accurate payment. The ICPO affects “hiring entities” or any individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, or any entity, person or group of persons, or a successor thereof, that hires independent contractors to provide services within the scope of a hiring entity’s business or commercial activities. In the construction context, most general contractors, subcontractors, design professionals, and design consultants should be aware of this ordinance, as well as certain owners[iv] and development-side entities. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
    Mr. Colburn may be contacted at travis.colburn@acslawyers.com

    Insurer’s Broad Duty to Defend in Oregon, and the Recent Ruling in State of Oregon v. Pacific Indemnity Company

    January 02, 2024 —
    Oregon law mandates a broad duty to defend, requiring insurers to provide legal representation to their policyholders whenever there is a potential for coverage under the policy. The significance of this broad interpretation means that an insurer has a duty to defend an insured even in situations where the alleged facts only imply a covered claim, and even in situations where the underlying claim is ultimately not covered by the policy. The insurer’s duty to defend is triggered if the allegations of the complaint, reasonably interpreted, could result in the insured being held liable for damages covered by the policy. This is referred to as the “four-corners” rule; it is also sometimes referred to as the eight-corners rule (for the four corners of the complaint plus the four corners of the policy). Oregon’s adoption of a broad interpretation of the duty to defend affirmatively places the onus on insurers to err on the side of coverage. This broad duty to defend is based on the principle that an insured should not have to bear the expense of defending a lawsuit that the insurer may ultimately have to pay for. The duty to defend is also important because it helps ensure that insureds have access to legal representation when faced with a lawsuit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Keith Sparks, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Sparks may be contacted at keith.sparks@acslawyers.com

    Appeals Court Rules that CGL Policy Doesn’t Cover Subcontractors’ Faulty Work

    August 06, 2014 —
    According to Business Insurance, in J-McDaniel Construction Co. Inc. v. Mid-Continental Casualty Co. et al., an appeals court upheld a lower court ruling that a “construction company's commercial general liability insurance policy does not provide coverage for faulty workmanship or subcontractor negligence.” “We are not at liberty to disregard the binding law of the state, nor may we substitute our judgment for that of the Arkansas Supreme Court,” said the panel, in affirming the lower court ruling, as quoted in Business Insurance. Judy Greenwald of Business Insurance pointed out that “[l]ast year, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati held that a subcontractor's allegedly faulty preparation of a building pad, which resulted in subsequent settling and structural damage to the building constructed on top of it, was not an occurrence within the standard coverage language of a CGL policy.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Home-Sales Fall in 2014 Has U.S. Waiting for 2015: Economy

    January 28, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- A three-year winning streak for sales of previously owned homes in the U.S. ended in 2014 as some investors stepped out of the market and first-time buyers failed to fill the void. Purchases totaled 4.93 million last year, down 3.1 percent from the 5.09 million houses sold in 2013, figures from the National Association of Realtors showed Friday in Washington. The share of American homebuyers making their first purchase dropped in 2014 to its lowest level in almost three decades, according to the Realtors group. At the same time, employment gains, growing consumer confidence, mortgage rates at historically low levels and government efforts to lower purchasing costs probably will help bolster demand in 2015. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News

    U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Maritime Charters and the Specter of a New Permitting Regime

    February 24, 2020 —
    Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two important environmental cases—one that could change the approach to routine maritime charters and another that could introduce a potentially punishing permitting regime via a CWA citizen suit. Cleaning the Delaware: CITGO Asphalt Refining Company v. Frescati Shipping Company The CITGO case involves a large oil spill into the Delaware River, and who bears financial responsibility for the cleanup. CITGO chartered an oil tanker to bring Venezuelan crude oil to CITGO’s New Jersey refinery located on the Delaware River. The tanker struck a submerged and abandoned anchor within yards of the refinery, and a large and expensive oil spill resulted. In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act, both the shipper, Frescati Shipping Company, and the United States, paid for the immediate oil spill response, and CITGO was later sued for a large share of these costs based on the fact that it entered into a charter with Frescati, which obliged CITGO to provide a “safe berth.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that CITGO was liable under the principles of maritime law, meaning that CITGO was strictly liable for the spill even if no one knew that the anchor was present on the floor of the river or lurking in the waters of the Delaware River. CITGO has argued that this result is unfair and poses a threat to the maritime shipping industry if it is held to be strictly liable for this spill. It appears that this is may well be the majority rule that is applied when interpreting these routinely entered maritime charters. The Court’s decision will be immensely important to the shipping industry. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    He Turned Wall Street Offices Into Homes. Now He Vows to Remake New York

    February 14, 2023 —
    In the lobby of a downtown Manhattan tower, Nathan Berman pauses to admire the marble walls and terrazzo floors. A real estate developer, he has a taste for old-world detail, like the fur lining in his navy overcoat, accented with a ­polka-dot scarf. It’s rush hour in the heart of Wall Street, and Berman’s at its white-hot center, 55 Broad St., former offices of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. But, like many buildings in the age of working from home, this onetime hub of capitalism is largely empty. Many of Berman’s rivals would be discouraged. He’s thrilled. Berman transforms vacant office buildings into top-of-the-line apartments. At 63, he’s the king of office conversion. From the 23rd floor of 55 Broad, Berman can make out five of his projects in the bright December sunlight. They include 20 Broad, a midcentury modern building that had outlived its usefulness as the onetime headquarters of the New York Stock Exchange. Today, along with apartments, it features a rooftop terrace with views of the harbor, a theater, a yoga studio, a game room and a fitness center. Gazing into the distance, Berman points toward another of his alchemies: a former Tribeca bookbindery where Oscar-winning actor Jennifer Lawrence and pop star Harry Styles have owned homes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Natalie Wong, Bloomberg