BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture 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


    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/18/23) – Zillow’s New Pilot Program, Production Begins at Solar Panel Plant in Georgia, and More Diversity on Contracts for Buffalo Bills Stadium

    Foreclosure Deficiency: Construction Loan vs. Home Improvement Loan

    EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules

    Couple Perseveres to Build Green

    California Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against Builders

    Ignoring Employee ADA Accommodation Requests Can Be Costly – A Cautionary Tale

    When is a “Notice of Completion” on a California Private Works Construction Project Valid? Why Does It Matter for My Collection Rights?

    Insurer Obligated to Cover Preventative Remediation of Construction Defects

    Metrostudy Shows New Subdivisions in Midwest

    Ten-Year Statute Of Repose To Sue For Latent Construction Defects

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

    Dynamics of Managing Professional Liability Claims for Design Builders

    Autovol’s Affordable Housing Project with Robotic Automation

    American Council of Engineering Companies of California Selects New Director

    Dot I’s and Cross T’s When It Comes to Construction Licensure Requirements

    District Court's Ruling Affirmed in TCD v American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

    How BIM Can Serve Building Owners

    No One to Go After for Construction Defects at Animal Shelter

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Dining

    Consider Arbitration Provision in Homebuilder’s Warranty and Purchase-and-Sale Agreement

    Have the Feds Taken Over Arbitration?

    Another Reason to Always Respond (or Hensel Phelps Wins One!)

    Sustainability Puts Down Roots in Real Estate

    ‘The Ground Just Gave Out’: How a Storm’s Fury Ravaged Asheville

    New York’s Highest Court Gives Insurers “an Incentive to Defend”

    Homeowner Alleges Pool Construction Is Defective

    Impairing Your Insurer’s Subrogation Rights

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

    Illinois Attorney General Warns of Home Repair Scams

    The Death of Retail and Legal Issues

    A Compilation of Quirky Insurance Claims

    Empowering Success: The Advantages of Female Attorneys in Construction Defect Law

    Toll Brothers Faces Construction Defect Lawsuit in New Jersey

    Yellowstone Park Aims for Quick Reopening After Floods

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    Cross-Motions for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings for COVID-19 Claim Denied

    Overview of New Mexico Construction Law

    Florida District Court Finds That “Unrelated” Design Errors Sufficient to Trigger “Related Claims” Provision in Architects & Engineers Policy

    Unjust Enrichment Claims When There Is No Binding Contract

    Housing Starts Rebound in U.S. as Inflation Eases: Economy

    MDL for Claims Against Manufacturers and Distributors of PFAS-Containing AFFFs Focuses Attention on Key Issues

    Arizona Court Affirms Homeowners’ Association’s Right to Sue Over Construction Defects

    COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims Four Years Later: What Have We Learned?

    Hunton Insurance Coverage Group Ranked in National Tier 1 by US News & World Report

    Developer’s Failure to Plead Amount of Damages in Cross-Complaint Fatal to Direct Action Against Subcontractor’s Insurers Based on Default Judgment

    Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations

    Florida Representative Wants to Change Statute of Repose

    Practical Advice: Indemnification and Additional Insured Issues Revisited

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Slump to Lowest Level Since November

    The Ghosts of Projects Past
    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. Leveraging 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

    Resulting Loss From Faulty Workmanship Covered

    May 20, 2024 —
    The Washington Supreme Court found there was coverage for resulting loss despite the original faulty contraction, an exclusion in the policy. Gardens Condominium v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 544 P.3d 499 (Wash. 2024). Farmers issued a policy to Gardens Condominium providing coverage for loss or damage caused by a "Covered Cause of Loss." "Covered Cause of Loss" was defined as any risk of direct physical loss. However, a loss was not covered if it was caused by an excluded event. The policy further provided that damage was caused by an excluded event if that event "initiates a sequence of events that results in loss or damage, regardless of the nature of any intermediate or final event in that sequence." The policy excluded coverage for faulty, inadequate, or defective design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, or renovation. The faulty workmanship exclusion also contained a resulting loss exception: "[I]f loss or damage caused by a Covered Cause of Loss results, we will pay for that resulting loss or damage." Gardens found damage to the building that was caused by faulty design and construction of the building's roof. There was insufficient interior vents and the design of the rafters and joists prevented need ventilation Water vapor condensed on the underside of the roof sheathing, causing damage. Gardens redesigned and repaired the roof assembly to increase ventilation and eliminate condensation by installing sleepers on top of the joists. 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

    First Circuit Rules Excess Insurer Must Provide Coverage for Fuel Spill

    January 18, 2021 —
    The First Circuit recently held that a “Special Hazard and Fluids Limitation Endorsement” was ambiguous and therefore there was excess coverage for a fuel spill that occurred after a tanker-truck overturned. In Performance Trans. Inc. v. General Star Indem. Co., the First Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of General Star Indemnity Company. The District Court held that the excess policy General Star issued to Performance Trans. Inc. precluded coverage for a spill that resulted in the leaking of thousands of gallons of fuel. The District Court relied on the existence of a total pollution exclusion to bar coverage and held that the policy’s Special Hazards and Fluids Limitation Endorsement could not create an ambiguity that would afford coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at sahmad@HuntonAK.com Ms. Perez may be contacted at pereza@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Privette Doctrine and Its Exceptions: Court of Appeal Grapples With the Easy and Not So Easy

    November 18, 2024 —
    In CBRE v. Superior Court, 102 Cal.App.5th 639 (2024), the 4th District Court of Appeal grappled with a thorny and not-so-thorny issue involving injured parties under the Privette doctrine. The less thorny issue was whether application of the Privette doctrine depends on whether a written contract exists between the parties. Spoiler: It does not. The thorny issue was whether the Hooker exception to the Privette doctrine – which applies when a landowner exercises control over a project – should apply where a landowner directs a contractor to perform work that is at odds with legal requirements. The CBRE Case Property Reserve, Inc. owns an office building managed by CBRE in San Diego, California. On April 9, 2019, PRI entered into a lease agreement with a new tenant for a suite in the building. The lease required that PRI perform certain tenant improvements. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Note on First-Party and Third-Party Spoliation of Evidence Claims

    October 30, 2018 —
    In an earlier posting, I talked about spoliation of evidence. This posting discussed first-party spoliation of evidence which is where a party in a lawsuit has destroyed or lost potentially important documents or evidence. This type of spoliation of evidence does not give rise to an affirmative claim, but could be addressed by the trial court imposing sanctions or giving the devastating adverse inference jury instruction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Congratulations to Haight’s 2021 Super Lawyers San Diego Rising Stars

    May 03, 2021 —
    Haight congratulates partners Michael Parme and Arezoo Jamshidi and associate Catherine Asuncion who were selected to the 2021 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. Reprinted courtesy of Catherine M. Asuncion, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Michael C. Parme, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Asuncion may be contacted at casuncion@hbblaw.com Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com 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

    Double-Wide World Cup Seats Available to 6-Foot, 221-Pound Fans

    June 18, 2014 —
    Some of the double-wide seats that Brazilian law guarantees for obese World Cup fans are being occupied by people who don’t need that much extra space, and FIFA said it can’t do anything to prevent that from happening. Soccer’s governing body said it is using World Health Organization and official Brazil Ministry of Health guidelines on who can be classified as obese. Those with a body mass index, or BMI, of 30 or higher can purchase a special-needs ticket at half price and get one of the special seats. Someone who is 6 feet tall and weighs 221 pounds (1.8 meters, 100 kilograms) would qualify. “There are cases where a person doesn’t look obese but meets the guidelines,” Federico Addiechi, head of corporate hospitality, said after a briefing yesterday at Rio de Janeiro’s Maracana stadium, where the World Cup’s July 13 final will be held. “We cannot decide you are not obese if the law says you are obese.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tariq Panja, Bloomberg
    Mr. Panja may be contacted at tpanja@bloomberg.net

    The Biggest Thing Keeping Young Homebuyers out of the Market Isn't Student Debt

    September 17, 2015 —
    Conventional wisdom has it that the staggering student debt incurred by the current generation of young professionals has made it harder to save for a home—and deprived the U.S. housing market of the first-time buyer lifeblood it depends on. But not so fast. A blog post published by Zillow today shows that student-loan debt has little impact on the homebuying prospects of young families. This is not the first report to poke holes in the student-debt-holding-back-home-ownership theory, but Zillow's research makes its point by limiting the data to married couples in their early-30s with at least one child. The idea was to cut out the student debtors who don't own homes because they haven't yet started a family and attempt to isolate the effect of student debt on home ownership. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Clark, Bloomberg