BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractor
    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


    Gene Witkin Joins Ross Hart’s Mediation Team at AMCC

    EO or Uh-Oh: Biden’s Executive Order Requiring Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects

    Construction in Indian Country – What You Need To Know About Sovereign Immunity

    New York Court Finds No Coverage Owed for Asbestos Losses Because Insured Failed to Prove Material Terms

    10 Answers to Those Nagging Mechanics Lien Questions Keeping You Up at Night. Kind of

    Homebuilding Down in North Dakota

    Eighth Circuit Rejects Retroactive Application of Construction Defect Legislation

    A Primer on Insurance for Construction Projects

    Manufacturer of Asbestos-Free Product May Still Be Liable for Asbestos Related Injuries

    Will Maryland Beltway Developer's Exit Doom $7.6B P3 Project?

    Insured's Experts Excluded, But Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

    Appellate Court of Maryland Construes Notice Conditions of A312 Performance Bond in Favor of Surety

    Illinois Insureds are Contesting One Carrier's Universal Denial to Covid-19 Losses

    Building 47 Bridges in Two Years

    Ninth Circuit Holds that 1993 Budget Appropriations Language Does Not Compel the Corps of Engineers to use 1987 Wetlands Guidance Indefinitely

    Some Insurers Dismissed, Others Are Not in Claims for Faulty Workmanship

    Even with LEED, Clear Specifications and Proper Documentation are Necessary

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

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

    Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Irma

    Renee Mortimer Recognized as "Defense Lawyer of the Year" by DTCI

    Texas Supreme Court Declines to Waive Sovereign Immunity in Premises Defect Case

    Overview of New Mexico Construction Law

    Allegations that Carrier Failed to Adequately Investigate Survive Demurrer

    Gloria Gaynor Sues Contractor over Defective Deck Construction

    COVID-19 Business Interruption Lawsuits Begin: Iconic Oceana Grill in New Orleans Files Insurance Coverage Lawsuit

    Coverage Exists for Landlord as Additional Insured

    Risk Transfer: The Souffle of Construction Litigation

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TX

    Force Majeure Under the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic

    Pine River’s Two Harbors Now Targets Non-Prime Mortgages

    Another (Insurer) Bites The Dust: Virginia District Court Rejects Narrow Reading of Pollution Exclusion

    Deescalating Hyper Escalation

    Settlement Conference May Not Be the End in Construction Defect Case

    Bribe Charges Take Toll on NY Contractor

    A New Way to Design in 3D – Interview with Pouria Kay of Grib

    BIM Meets Reality on the Construction Site

    U.S. Firm Helps Thais to Pump Water From Cave to Save Boys

    Homebuilder Confidence Takes a Beating

    Purely “Compensatory” Debts Owed by Attorneys to Clients (Which Are Not Disciplinary or Punitive Fees Imposed by the State Bar) Are Dischargeable In Bankruptcy

    Metrostudy Shows New Subdivisions in Midwest

    Slavin Doctrine and Defense from Patent Defects

    New NEPA Rule Restores Added Infrastructure Project Scrutiny

    2022 California Construction Law Update

    Contractor to Repair Defective Stucco, Plans on Suing Subcontractor

    Hospital Inspection to Include Check for Construction Defects

    Contractor Underpaid Workers, Pocketed the Difference
    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

    #5 CDJ Topic: David Belasco v. Gary Loren Wells et al. (2015) B254525

    December 30, 2015 —
    Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto, and David A. Napper analyzed the above mentioned Belasco case, in which “the Second District Court of Appeal made clear that settlement agreements containing waviers of unknown claims in connection with a construction of a property, absent fraud or misrepresentation, will be upheld.” Glucksman, et al. explained that “the homeowner plaintiff had made a claim against the builder pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 896 (“Right to Repair”) and settled for a cash payment and obtained a Release of all Claims including for all known and unknown claims. The court held that homeowner’s subsequent construction defect claim was barred pursuant to the terms and conditions of the earlier release.” Read the full story... In another article on the subject, Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler of White and Williams LLP concluded, “The Court of Appeal’s holding establishes that, despite the prohibition against the release of unknown claims set forth in section 1524 and the protections provided to homeowners by the Right to Repair Act, California homeowners can, in fact, release or waive claims against homebuilders for future, latent construction defects. To release or waive such claims, the language of any settlement agreement should be unequivocal.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Three Reasons Late Payments Persist in the Construction Industry

    December 22, 2019 —
    Construction professionals are all too familiar with the payment issues that plague the construction industry. Contractors, subcontractors and material suppliers often have to deal with payment delays and even nonpayment—affecting cash flow and their ability to meet expenses. According to an Atradius study, a quarter of all B2B invoices issued in North America are overdue. The construction industry accounted for one-third of those past-due invoices, and many contractors and construction business owners do not have a positive outlook on the industry's payment issues. The same survey found 55% of U.S. firms think there will be no change in the industry’s payment practices over the coming months—one-third even expects an increase in late payments. These findings show that managing cash flow is a significant challenge in the construction industry. Having a negative cash flow will push the company toward financial trouble, which may ultimately lead to its demise. Understanding the reasons why payment issues persist in construction will help contractors protect their business, prevent these issues from happening or at least minimize their effect on the current operations. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Hogan, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Corps of Engineers to Prepare EIS for Permit to Construct Power Lines Over Historic James River

    May 01, 2019 —
    On March 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided National Parks Conservation Assoc. v. Todd T. Simonite, Lieutenant General, et al. The case involves an application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a construction permit to build electric power lines over the “historic James River, from whose waters Captain John Smith explored the New World.” The Corps concluded after reviewing the thousands of comments submitted to it in connection with this application, and after considering the views of several government agencies and conservation groups, that an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) was not required, and that its Environmental Assessment assured the Corps that the project would not result is significant environmental impacts. The Court of Appeals has concluded that, based on this evidence, the Corps’ refusal to prepare an EIS thoroughly discussing all these points was arbitrary and capricious. The Corps has been ordered to prepare the EIS and to take special note of its obligations under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA) and its obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act. 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

    Colorado Springs may be Next Colorado City to Add Construction Defects Ordinance

    October 28, 2015 —
    The Gazette reported that Colorado Springs city councilwoman Jill Gaebler stated that “she would bring a proposal to the council next month that would address the construction defects issue.” Gaebler told The Gazette: “We have gone back and forth with how best to address this issue. It is a statewide concern, so how do we bring forward something that is meaningful to our community without stepping on the toes of our legislators?” The state of Colorado has tried and failed to pass construction defects legislation three years in a row, according to The Gazette. If Colorado Springs adopts an ordinance, it will become the ninth city to pass construction defects laws. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Patagonia Will Start Paying for Homeowners' Solar Panels

    October 15, 2014 —
    Patagonia plans to use state and federal tax credits to invest $13 million in the construction of solar panels on 1,000 homes in Hawaii, turning the eco-conscious retailer into the financial backer of a green electrical utility. With the announcement on Wednesday, Patagonia hopes companies across America will follow suit with similar efforts. “Any U.S. public or private company who pays their fair share of taxes can use this strategy to speed up the development of new energy infrastructure,” Rose Marcario, Patagonia’s chief executive, said in an interview. “And they can make money doing it and create jobs.” Patagonia is joining forces with a tiny solar-financing company, Kina’ole Capital Partners, as well as a local Hawaiian bank to create a $27 million fund to pay for rooftop installation and upkeep. Starting in Hawaii makes sense because of its abundant sunshine and sky-high electrical rates; Hawaiians currently pay three times the U.S. average for electricity. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Caroline Winter, Bloomberg Businessweek
    Ms. Winter may be contacted at cwinter10@bloomberg.net

    Persimmon Offers to Fix Risky Homes as Cladding Crisis Grows

    February 22, 2021 —
    Persimmon Plc, the U.K.’s biggest homebuilder, has offered to pay for work on potentially unsafe buildings in the wake of the cladding scandal that arose from London’s Grenfell Tower fire. The firm has made a provision of 75 million pounds ($104 million) in its 2020 results for any necessary repair work on 26 buildings it developed that may be affected by the issue, it said in a statement Wednesday. It no longer owns the properties and said it would provide support where owners failed to accept their legal responsibilities. “The concern around now banned cladding is affecting many thousands of homeowners who live in high-rise buildings right across the country,” Chairman Roger Devlin said in the statement. “We believe we have a clear duty to act to address this issue.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Olivia Konotey-Ahulu, Bloomberg

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    March 28, 2012 —

    The Duphuys of Baton Rouge Louisiana found themselves needing to argue both sides of an issue, according to the judge in Duphuy v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company. The Duphuys alleged that the drywall in their home “emits odorous gases that cause damage to air-condition and refrigerator coils, copper tubing, electrical wiring, computer wiring, and other household items.” Additionally, they reported damage to “their home’s insulation, trimwork, floors, cabinets, carpets, and other items” which they maintained were “covered under the ‘ensuing loss’ portion of their policy.”

    Their insurer declined coverage, stating that the damages were not a “direct, physical loss,” and even if they were “four different exclusions independently exclude coverage, even if such loss occurred.” The policy excludes defective building materials, latent defects, pollutants, and corrosion damage. The court noted that “ambiguities in policy exclusions are construed to afford coverage to the insured.”

    The court did determine that the Duphuys were not in “a situation where the plaintiffs caused the risk for which they now seek coverage.” The judge cited an earlier case, In re Chinese Drywall, “a case with substantially similar facts and construing the same policy” and in that case, “property damage” was determined to “include the loss of use of tangible property.” The court’s conclusion was that the Duphuys “suffered a direct, physical loss triggering coverage under their policy.”

    Unfortunately for the Duphuys, at this point the judge noted that while they had a “direct, physical loss,” the exclusions put them “in the tough predicament of claiming the drywall is neither defective nor its off-gassing corrosive or a pollutant, but nonetheless damage-causing.”

    In the earlier Chinese Drywall case, the judge found that “faulty and defective materials” “constitutes a physical thing tainted by imperfection or impairment.” The case “found the drywall served its intended purpose as a room divider and insulator but nonetheless qualified under the exclusion, analogizing the drywall to building components containing asbestos that courts have previously determined fit under the same exclusion.” In the current case, the judge concluded that the drywall was “outside the realm of coverage under the policy.”

    The court also found that it had to apply the corrosion exclusion, noting that the plaintiffs tried to evade this by stating, “simplistically and somewhat disingenuously, that the damage is not caused by corrosion but by the drywall itself.” The plaintiffs are, however, parties to another Chinese drywall case, Payton v. Knauf Gips KG, in which “they directly alleged that ‘sulfides and other noxious gases, such as those emitted from [Chinese] drywall, cause corrosion and damage to personal property.’” As the court pointed out, the Duphuys could not claim in one case that the corrosion was caused by gases emitted by the drywall and in another claim it was the drywall itself. “They hope their more ambiguous allegations will be resolved in their favor and unlock the doors to discovery.”

    The court quickly noted that “the remaining damage allegations are too vague and conclusory to construe” and permitted “exploration of the latent defect and pollution exclusions.”

    The judge concluded that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient facts to establish coverage under the ensuing loss provision, stating that the “plaintiffs must allege, at the very least, how the drywall causes damage to the trimwork, carpet, etc., not simply that it does so.” Given the court’s determinations in the case, the plaintiffs’ motion was dismissed.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2022 Southern California Rising Stars List

    June 13, 2022 —
    NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – June 8, 2022 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that partner Jason Moberly Caruso and associate Jessica Garland Daley have been selected to the 2022 Southern California Rising Stars list by Super Lawyers. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected to receive this honor. The attorneys will be recognized in the June 2022 issues of Super Lawyers Magazine, Los Angeles Magazine and Orange Coast Magazine. Jason Moberly Caruso is a partner in the Newport Beach office. Jason's practice focuses on land use, "contaminated sites" environmental legal work, complex litigation, and appellate matters. This is the fifth consecutive year Jason has been honored. Jessica Garland Daley is an associate in the Newport Beach office. Jessica's practice focuses on litigation in the areas of employment law and construction law. This is the first year Jessica has been selected. About Newmeyer Dillion For over 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 60 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's operations, growth, and profits. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of