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


    Construction Defect Claim not Barred by Prior Arbitration

    Increases in U.S. Office Rents Led by San Jose and Dallas

    Supreme Court Declines to Address CDC Eviction Moratorium

    CA Court of Appeal Reinstates Class Action Construction Defect Claims Against Homebuilder

    Appraisal Can Go Forward Prior to Resolution of Coverage Dispute

    Hammer & Hand’s Top Ten Predictions for US High Performance Building in 2014

    Sales of Existing Homes in U.S. Fall to Lowest Since 2012

    Building Codes Evolve With High Wind Events

    Foreign Entry into the United States Construction, Infrastructure and PPP Markets

    Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm

    Land a Cause of Home Building Shortage?

    Builder Must Respond To Homeowner’s Notice Of Claim Within 14 Days Even If Construction Defect Claim Is Not Alleged With The “Reasonable Detail”

    Insurance for Large Construction Equipment Such as a Crane

    Unpredictable Power Surges Threaten US Grid — And Your Home

    White and Williams Recognized by BTI Consulting Group for Client Service

    Even Fraud in the Inducement is Tough in Construction

    NTSB Issues 'Urgent' Recommendations After Mass. Pipeline Explosions

    The CA Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review of McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.) As to Whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the Exclusive Remedy for All Defect Claims Arising Out of New Residential Construction

    World Cup May Pull Out of Brazil because of Construction Delays

    Construction Recovery Still Soft in New Hampshire

    California Cracking down on Phony Qualifiers

    District of Oregon Predicts Oregon’s Place in “Plain Meaning” Pollution Camp

    How U.S. Design and Architecture Firms Can Profit from the Chinese Market and Avoid Pitfalls

    CDJ’s #2 Topic of the Year: Ewing Constr. Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2014 Tex. LEXIS 39 (Tex. Jan.17, 2014)

    3D Printing: A New Era in Concrete Construction

    Construction Defect Class Action Lawsuit Alleges National Cover-up of Pipe Defects

    Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage

    Minneapolis Condo Shortage Blamed on Construction Defect Law

    Coverage Under Builder's Risk Policy Properly Excluded for Damage to Existing Structure Only

    California Appeals Court Says Loss of Use Is “Property Damage” Under Liability Policy, and Damages Can be Measured by Diminished Value

    An Era of Legends

    Chambers USA 2020 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Four Key Steps for a Successful Construction Audit Process

    There Is No Sympathy If You Fail to Read Closely the Final Negotiated Construction Contract

    Sacramento Army Corps District Projects Get $2.1 Billion in Supplemental Appropriation

    Construction Contract’s Scope of Work Should Be Written With Clarity

    Keep It Simple: Summarize (Voluminous Evidence, That Is...)

    Court Grants Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment After Insured Fails to Provide Evidence of Systemic Collapse

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

    Licensing Reciprocity Comes to Virginia

    Illinois Legislature Enables Pre-Judgment Interest in Personal Injury Cases

    Walmart Seeks Silicon Valley Vibe for New Arkansas Headquarters

    U.S. Homeowners Are Lingering Longer, and the Wait Is Paying Off

    eRent: Construction Efficiency Using Principles of the Sharing Economy

    Admissibility of Expert Opinions in Insurance Bad Faith Trials

    The Impact of Sopris Lodging v. Schofield Excavation on Timeliness of Colorado Construction Defect Claims

    Congratulations Bryan Stofferahn, August Hotchkin, and Eileen Gaisford on Their Promotion to Partner!

    Trends: “Nearshoring” Opportunities for the Construction Industry

    A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Substitution Hearings Under California’s Listing Law

    When Licensing Lapses: How One Contractor Lost a $1 Million Dispute
    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

    Construction Law: Unexpected, Fascinating, Bizarre

    April 25, 2012 —

    Guy Randles offers an amusing set of odd construction law cases in the Daily Journal of Commerce, which he describes as “the unexpected, the fascinating and even the bizarre.” He noted that in one case “a whistleblower claimed he was terminated for reporting to the owner that the contractor’s painters had not applied the required coating thickness.” The whistleblower was the project manager and “was responsible for ensuring the proper coating thickness.”

    A less amusing case was that of an architect who was arrested for manslaughter. Gerard Baker “told investigators that the considered the fireplaces to be merely decorative.” Randles notes that “the mansion’s fireplaces were built of wood framing and lined with combustible drywall.” Further, a “gas fireplace even vented into the house’s interior.” Building officials called the house “a death trap.” According to the LA police chief this may be the only case in which building defects lead to a manslaughter charge.

    Read the full story…

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

    Broker for Homeowners Policy Has No Duty to Advise Insureds on Excess Flood Coverage

    November 02, 2017 —
    A broker who assisted the insureds in procuring a homeowners policy had no duty to advise the insureds to secure additional flood coverage. Ring v. Meeker Sharkey Assocs., LLC, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3458 (N.J. Super Ct. App. Div. Sept.26, 2017). The insureds owned two beachfront properties that were located in a designated flood zone. They secured homeowners and flood insurance through Meeker's predecessor. Subsequently, Meeker became the insureds' homeowners insurance broker while Willis, N.A. was their flood insurance broker. 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

    #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

    NJ Court Reaffirms Rule Against Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims and Finds Fraud Claims Inherently Intentional

    September 20, 2021 —
    Awarding summary judgment to an insurer under both liability and directors & officers (D&O) coverage parts, a New Jersey trial court reaffirmed the principle that claims of defective workmanship without resulting “property damage” are not covered under a general liability policy, and further dismissed claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, finding that such claims were inherently intentional and do not state a covered “occurrence.” In Velez v. AR Management Company, et al., 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1675 (Law Div. Bergen Co. Aug. 10, 2021), owners of a condominium unit rebuilt after a fire sued the condominium association, several association board members, the association’s property management company and the general contractor for the reconstruction work. The owners’ suit alleged faulty workmanship and incomplete repairs. In addition, the owners asserted fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the management company, alleging conflicts of interest and self-dealing between the management company and the general contractor, which had common ownership. In a third-party complaint, the management company sought coverage from the condo association’s liability and D&O insurer. The court dismissed the D&O coverage claim, noting that the management company was not a director or officer or otherwise entitled to insured status for the D&O coverage part. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Frank J. Perch, III, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Perch may be contacted at perchf@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Give a Little Extra …”

    July 31, 2024 —
    Surplus lines insurers in Louisiana are considered by the state to be “an alternative type of property and casualty insurance coverage for consumers who cannot get coverage on the standard market … for specialty risk or high-risk situations….” As a quid pro quo for undertaking the exceptional risk, a surplus lines insurer argued to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that an arbitration clause within its surplus line policy should be enforceable, notwithstanding a Louisiana statute applying to the insurance industry and prohibiting terms in insurance policies “delivered or issued for delivery” in Louisiana which have the effect of “[d]epriving the courts of this state of the jurisdiction or venue of action against the insurer.” La. R.S. 22:868. Historically in Louisiana, arbitration clauses have been understood to divest courts of jurisdiction, and, consequently, §22:868 has been held to memorialize an “anti-arbitration policy,” although the statute does not specifically mention arbitration. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Insurers Must Defend Allegations of Faulty Workmanship

    June 20, 2022 —
    Granting the insured's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, the court determined the insurers had a duty to defend. Suez Treatment Solutions, Inc. v. Ace Am. Ins. Co. & Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59044 (S. D. N. Y. March 30, 2022). Suez Treatment Solutions, Inc. held policies from Chubb and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company to cover its operations in connection with the development of a pollution treatment system in North Carolina. When the project ultimately failed, an underlying action sought damages from Suez, alleging breach of contract, negligence, and fraud. Suez filed this case seeking a declaratory judgment that Chubb and Liberty were each obligated to defend and indemnify Suez in the underlying case. The City of High Point hired Suez to upgrade the facilities at its wastewater treatment plant staring in 2021. Because mercury levels were too high in emissions from sewage-sludge incinerators, Suez began working on the installation of a Mercury Removal System. After installation, a leak occurred in a component known as the heat exchanger. The leak caused the system to shut down and weeks-long repairs began. 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

    Safety Versus a False Sense of Security: Challenges to the Use of Construction Cranes

    March 18, 2019 —
    The history of safety is, in part, the history of resistance to safety. From transportation and travel to sports and entertainment, the safeguards taken for granted were once too allegedly controversial or costly for companies to grant to consumers. Imagine driving a car without a seatbelt or being a passenger in a minivan without side-impact airbags or anti-lock brakes, or playing football without a helmet or riding a roller coaster without a shoulder harness. Imagine, too, pulling out of parking space without a rear-view camera, unable to see passing cars or pedestrians. Cameras are now as common among compact cars as on the most uncommonly expensive sports cars and sedans. And yet, the technology that earns drivers a discount on car insurance is the same or mostly similar technology that insurers refuse to cover elsewhere. The technologies that makes parallel parking easier or easing a car into traffic a cinch is considered an extravagance on construction equipment, despite the dangers crane operators face but cannot see, despite what workers on the ground can see but not forecast, despite what cameras can record and capture. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Machut, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Reinstates COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave

    February 21, 2022 —
    On February 9, 2022, Governor Newsom signed California Legislature Senate Bill 114 (SB 114), which reinstates supplemental paid sick leave for qualifying reasons relating to COVID-19. Employers may recall SB 95, which expired on September 30, 2021, and was substantially similar to SB 114. Like its predecessor, SB 114 applies to employers with 26 or more employees and provides up to 80 hours of supplemental paid sick leave to full-time employees who are unable to work (including telework) for a reason relating to COVID-19. While this legislation goes into effect on February 19, 2022, it will retroactively apply back to January 1, 2022 and remain in effect until September 30, 2022. REASONS FOR LEAVE – TWO PERIODS Unlike SB 95, SB 114 breaks the total possible 80 hours of COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave (CSPL) for full-time employees into two 40-hour periods. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jessica L. Daley, Newmeyer Dillion
    Ms. Daley may be contacted at jessica.daley@ndlf.com