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


    #12 CDJ Topic: Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015)

    Pennsylvania Finds Policy Triggered When Property Damage Reasonably Apparent

    Burg Simpson to Create Construction Defect Group

    Connecticut Appellate Court Breaks New Ground on Policy Exhaustion

    Supreme Court Overrules Longstanding Decision Supporting Collection of Union Agency Fees

    Client Alert: Stipulated Judgment For Full Amount Of Underlying Claim As Security For Compromise Settlement Void As Unenforceable Penalty

    Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract Language Matters

    The Starter Apartment Is Nearly Extinct in San Francisco and New York

    New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements

    Three Recent Cases Strike Down Liquidated Damages Clauses In Settlement Agreements…A Trend Or An Aberration?

    Homebuilder Confidence Takes a Beating

    Pandemic-Related Construction Materials Pricing Poses Challenges in Construction Lawsuits

    Wall Enclosing Georgia Neighborhood Built for Walking Dead TV Show

    Coverage, Bad Faith Upheld In Construction Defect Case

    Unjust Enrichment and Express Contract Don’t Mix

    The Shifting Sands of Alternative Dispute Resolution

    Paris ‘Locks of Love’ Overload Bridges, Threatening Structures

    Construction Mezzanine Financing

    Hard to Believe It, Construction Law Musings is 16

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

    DC Circuit Upholds EPA’s Latest RCRA Recycling Rule

    Economy in U.S. Picked Up on Consumer Spending, Construction

    Don’t Let Construction Problems Become Construction Disputes (guest post)

    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

    Embattled SNC-Lavalin Files Ethics Appeal, Realigns Structure

    Five-Year Peak for Available Construction Jobs

    A Court-Side Seat: Waters, Walls and Pipelines

    Required Contract Provisions for Construction Contracts in California

    Proposed Changes to Federal Lease Accounting Standards

    Emergency Paid Sick Leave and FMLA Leave Updates in Response to COVID-19

    Harmon Tower Case Settled Prior to Start of Trial

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2023 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas By U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    The Best Lawyers in America© Peer Review Names Eight Newmeyer & Dillion Partners in Multiple Categories and Two Partners as Orange County’s Lawyers of the Year in Construction and Insurance Law

    Constructive Suspension (Suspension Outside of an Express Order)

    New York Court Holds That the “Lesser of Two” Doctrine Limits Recoverable Damages in Subrogation Actions

    Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

    How AB5 has Changed the Employment Landscape

    The G2G Year in Review: 2020

    A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Endangered Species and Deliberative Process Privilege

    No Coverage For Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    NYPD Investigating Two White Flags on Brooklyn Bridge

    California Cracking down on Phony Qualifiers

    Court Finds that Subcontractor Lacks Standing to Appeal Summary Judgment Order Simply Because Subcontractor “Might” Lose at Trial Due to Order

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    Four Things Construction Professionals Need to Know About Asbestos

    Mercury News Editorial Calls for Investigation of Bay Bridge Construction

    Avoiding Construction Defect “Nightmares” in Florida

    Adaptive Reuse: Creative Reimagining of Former Office Space to Address Differing Demands

    Survey Finds Tough Labor Market Top-of-mind for Busy Georgia Contractors

    Another Worker Dies in Boston's Latest Construction Accident
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Fairfield's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Will the AI Frenzy Continue in 2025?

    January 14, 2025 —
    In AEC technology, 2024 was undoubtedly the year of AI. Every company seemed to announce its pledge to embrace artificial intelligence in the coming years, not to mention the numerous startups that peppered their pitch decks with promises of bleeding-edge innovation. Tech developers who had been using machine learning before the generative AI boom were delighted. They no longer needed to invest significant resources in convincing the industry of AI’s potential. The mainstream success of generative AI in 2024 created a ripple effect, making AEC firms eager to explore and adopt AI solutions. Many all-digital startups also got a boost from the AI frenzy, even though many significant innovations happened in hardware and material technology that did not rely on AI. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property

    October 26, 2020 —
    On August 28, Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California, entered the latest ruling in the ongoing saga of the COVID-19 business interruption coverage dispute between celebrity plaintiff’s attorney Mark Geragos and Insurer Travelers. The case, 10E, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut, was filed in state court. Travelers removed to federal court, where Geragos sought remand and Travelers moved to dismiss. Judge Wilson denied remand and granted the Motion to Dismiss, finding plaintiff did not satisfactorily allege the actual presence of COVID-19 on insured property or physical damage to its property. This holding is inconsistent with long standing principles of California insurance law and appears to improperly enhance the minimal pleading threshold under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need only allege a claim “that is plausible on its face.”). After rejecting Geragos’ attempt to have the case remanded based on a finding that Geragos had fraudulently joined a defendant to avoid removal, the Judge proceeded to the Motion to Dismiss which raised three issues: (1) the effect of the Virus Exclusion in the Travelers’ Policy, (2) whether plaintiff failed to allege that the governmental orders prohibited access to its property, and (3) whether plaintiff could “‘plausibly allege that it suffered ‘direct physical loss or damage to property’ as required for civil authority coverage.’” Rather than address the effect of the exclusion, which would be the narrowest issue (this exclusion is not present in all policies), the Court proceeded directly to the third issue, which has the broadest potential application. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    U.S. Home Sellers Return for Spring as Buyers Get Relief

    February 10, 2014 —
    Suzanne Baker and her siblings bought a foreclosed home in Atlanta two years ago, added a fourth bathroom, then waited for values to rebound before considering a sale. Now, she says, they’re ready to cash in. The family last month listed the four-bedroom house in the affluent Buckhead neighborhood for $710,000. It was purchased as an investment for about $375,000 in late 2011, before bulk buyers snapped up many of the area’s distressed homes, helping to drive up prices in Atlanta by more than 25 percent. “The market is back up,” Baker said. “We think we can make a good amount of profit so we’re going to try.” For two years, a shortage of sellers like the Bakers has propped up prices across the U.S. as shoppers jostled for a dwindling supply of houses. Now, as the market’s busiest season approaches, escalating values are spurring more listings as homeowners regain equity lost in the worst crash since the 1930s. While new-home construction at a third of its 2006 peak will keep inventory tight, the supply increase is poised to damp price gains while higher mortgage rates cut into demand. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
    Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

    Verdict In Favor Of Insured Homeowner Reversed For Improper Jury Instructions

    October 23, 2018 —
    The appellate court reversed the jury verdict in favor of the homeowners based upon improper instructions purporting to impose a duty to adjust the claim and how to construe a contract. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v Mendoza, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 9497 (Fla. Ct. App. July 5, 2018). The insureds incurred water damage to their home caused by a water heater leak. After a claim was filed, the insurer sent an adjuster to investigate the claim. The insurer denied the claim due to an exclusion for constant or repeated seepage or leakage. At trial, the insurer offered testimony that the leak was a continued and repeated seepage of water over a long period of time, which was excluded under the policy, and not a sudden and accidental discharge of water, which would have been covered. 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

    Haight Proudly Supports JDC's 11th Annual Bike-A-Thon Benefitting Pro Bono Legal Services

    July 21, 2018 —
    Haight proudly donates to the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San Francisco’s 11th Annual “Ride for Justice” in support of San Francisco attorney Stephen M. Tye. This is Mr. Tye’s second year participating in the JDC’s Bike-A-Thon, which raises funds to provide pro bono legal services programs that provide access to justice for thousands of San Franciscans every year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com

    Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit

    October 28, 2011 —

    The US District Court has ruled in the case of D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co. Inc. v. American Safety Indemnity, Co. D.R. Horton was involved in a real estate development project. Its subcontractor, Ebensteiner Co., was insured by ASIC and named D.R. Horton as an additional insured and third-party beneficiary. D.R. Horton, in response to legal complaints and cross-complaints, filed for coverage from ASIC under the Ebensteiner policy. This was refused by ASIC. ASIC claimed that “there is no potential coverage for Ebensteiner as a Named Insurer and/or D.R. Horton as an Additional Insured.” They stated that “the requirements for coverage are not satisfied.”

    The case same to trial with the deadline for discovery set at March 1, 2011. ASIC stated they were seeking the developer’s “job file” for the Canyon Gate project. D.R. Horton claimed that ASIC’s discovery request was overbroad and that it would be “unduly burdensome for it to produce all documents responsive to the overbroad requests.”

    D.R. Horton did agree to produce several categories of documents, which included:

    “(1) final building inspection sign-offs for the homes that are the subject of the underlying litigation;(2) an updated homeowner matrix for the underlying actions; (3) the concrete subcontractor files; (4) the daily field logs for D.R. Horton’s on-site employee during Ebensteiner’s work; (5) documents relating to concrete work, including documents for concrete suppliers; (6) documents relating to compacting testing; (7) documents relating to grading; and (8) D.R. Horton’s request for proposal for grading”

    The court found that the requests from ASIC were overbroad, noting that the language of the ASIC Request for Production of Documents (RFP) 3-5 would include “subcontractor files for plumbing, electric, flooring, etc. - none of these being at issue in the case.” The court denied the ASIC’s motion to compel further documents.

    The court also found fault with ASIC’s RFPs 6 and 7. Here, D.R. Horton claimed the language was written so broadly it would require the production of sales information and, again, subcontractors not relevant to the case.

    Further, the court found that RFPs 8, 10, 11, and 13 were also overbroad. RFP 8 covered all subcontractors. D.R. Horton replied that they had earlier complied with the documents covered in RFPs 10 and 11. The court concurred. RFP 13 was denied as it went beyond the scope of admissible evidence, even including attorney-client communication.

    The court denied all of ASIC’s attempts to compel further discovery.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    California Superior Court Overrules Insurer's Demurrer on COVID-19 Claim

    February 15, 2021 —
    A Superior Court in California overruled the insurer's demurrer to the policy holder's complaint seeking business interruption coverage after government shutdown orders were issued because of the coronavirus pandemic. Goodwill Industries of Orange County, California v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., Cal. Superior Ct., Civil No. 30-2020-01169032-CU-IC-CXC (Minute Order Jan. 28,, 2021). The minute order is here [Goodwill Decision]. The insurer demurred on the ground that the insured had not alleged sufficient facts to show "direct physical loss" under the business income, extra expenses and civil authority provisions in the policy because coronavirus and COVID-19 did not physically alter the structure. 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

    WSHB Expands to Philadelphia

    July 28, 2016 —
    Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) announced “the opening of its newest regional office at One Liberty Place, 1650 Market Street, 36th Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103,” according to a press release. Elizabeth Chalik will be the managing partner at the new location. Chalik is “a highly regarded litigator with close to 15 years of trial experience” and her practice has focused on products liability, casualty, toxic tort and transportation litigation. Furthermore, Chalik is admitted to practice law in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania. “It is fitting that as we celebrate WSHB’s 19th year, we are opening our 19th office,” said Daniel Berman, Firm Chairman and Co-founder. “With this expansion, we continue our pattern of strategic long term growth. That, coupled with Liz’s proven track record and many years in Philadelphia, further expands our ability to better serve our clients in the Northeast.” Chalik has been recognized on the Super Lawyers List of Rising Stars for three years running. “I am thrilled to be joining Wood Smith Henning & Berman. WSHB’s long-standing reputation and dedication to their clients drew me to them and I knew that this would be the right place for me,” said Chalik. “I could not be more excited about the opportunity to manage WSHB’s new Philadelphia office!” WSHB also has offices located in Connecticut, Denver, Fresno, Glendale, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, New Jersey, New York, Northern California, Orange County, Phoenix, Portland, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverside, San Diego, Seattle and Tampa. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of