BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing 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


    Are Construction Defect Claims Covered Under CGL Policies?

    Fannie Mae Says Millennials Are Finally Leaving Their Parents' Basements

    Retired Judge Claims Asbestos in Courthouse gave him Cancer

    U.S., Canada, Mexico Set New Joint Clean-Energy Goal

    California insured’s duty to cooperate and insurer’s right to select defense counsel

    Negligence Claim Not Barred by Gist of the Action Doctrine

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim

    Philadelphia Court Rejects Expert Methodology for Detecting Asbestos

    Appraisal Process Analyzed

    Designing a Fair Standard of Care in Design Agreements

    Another Colorado Construction Defect Reform Bill Dies

    Define the Forum and Scope of Recovery in Contract Disputes

    No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

    Denver’s Mayor Addresses Housing and Modifying Construction Defect Law

    OSHA Updates: New Submission Requirements for Injury and Illness Records

    Happy Thanksgiving from CDJ

    Defending Against the Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine – Liability Considerations

    Maybe California Actually Does Have Enough Water

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/05/22) – Hurricane Ian, the Inflation Reduction Act, and European Real Estate

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Celebrates 21-Year Success Story

    A Court-Side Seat: Butterflies, Salt Marshes and Methane All Around

    New World to Demolish Luxury Hong Kong Towers in Major Setback

    Europe’s Satellites Could Help Catch the Next Climate Disaster

    What is a “Force Majeure” Clause? Do I Need one in my Contract? Three Options For Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers to Consider

    U.S. Construction Value Flat at End of Summer

    A Classic Blunder: Practical Advice for Avoiding Two-Front Wars

    Insurers Need only Prove that Other Coverage Exists for Construction Defect Claims

    Loaded Boom of Burning Tower Crane Collapses in Manhattan, Injuring Six

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

    Contract Disruptions: Navigating Supply Constraints and Labor Shortages

    2016 California Construction Law Upate

    Circuit Court Lacks Appellate Jurisdiction Over Order Compelling Appraisal

    What Happens When a Secured Creditor Files a Late Claim in an Equity Receivership?

    Medical Center Builder Sues Contracting Agent, Citing Costly Delays

    Can a Non-Union Company Be Compelled to Arbitrate?

    Collapse of Improperly Built Deck Not An Occurrence

    Legal Battle Kicks Off to Minimize Baltimore Bridge Liabilities

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    Should CGL Insurer have Duty to Defend Insured During Chapter 558 Notice of Construction Defects Process???

    2018 California Construction Law Update

    Colorado Introduces Construction Defect Bill for Commuter Communities

    Rather Than Limit Decision to "That Particular Part" of Developer's Policy Necessary to Bar Coverage, 10th Circuit Renders Questionable Decision on Exclusion j(6)

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    Sales of Existing U.S. Homes Decrease on Fewer Investors

    Remote Trials Can Control Prejudgment Risk

    Challenging a Termination for Default

    Issues to Watch Out for When Managing Remote Workers

    Pennsylvania Finds Policy Triggered When Property Damage Reasonably Apparent

    Killer Subcontract Provisions

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorney Alan Packer Selected to the 2017 Northern California Super Lawyers List
    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

    Louisiana District Court Declines to Apply Total Pollution Exclusion

    December 15, 2016 —
    The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana recently decided that a broad total pollution exclusion in a marine general liability policy did not bar coverage. The insurer could not unambiguously establish, based on the facts of the underlying case, that waste from a shipyard’s sandblasting activities met the requirements of the exclusion. The court found that the insurer could not meet Louisiana’s three-part test to determine whether the policy’s total pollution exclusion applied. The Doerr test requires an insurer to refer to the allegations in the underlying complaint to prove 1) the insured is a “polluter”, 2) the injury-causing substance is a “pollutant,” and 3) there was a “discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape” of the pollutant. Total pollution exclusions are extremely prohibitive for policyholders because they eliminate coverage for virtually all pollution incidents, but this decision reinforces that policyholders may still have a path to coverage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    July 11, 2011 —

    A new law in South Carolina, H 3375, fixes a loophole in that state’s statute of repose. State law puts a cap of eight years on construction defects, but the 2008 law that set that limit had a loophole that would allow for construction defect claims to start thirteen years after construction. The law also provides a cap on punitive damages.

    The measure was backed by the Carolinas Association of General Contractors. Their spokesperson said that the legislation “increases our state’s ability to be economically competitive and helps protect our members from frivolous lawsuits.”

    Read the full story…

    Read South Carolina H 3375…

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

    Edinburg School Inspections Uncovered Structural Construction Defects

    April 11, 2018 —
    Yesterday, the Herald reported that six schools and a nursery have been affected by construction defects in Edinburg. For every eight properties inspected by council, one was found to share analogous issues which caused “a wall to collapse at a city primary school in 2016.” Furthermore, over the course of eighteen months, inspectors will observe more buildings across Edinburg in order to guarantee their “structural safety.” At Oxgangs Primary School, during Storm Gertrude in January 2016, nine tons of masonry fell from the side of a building. The Herald reported 17 other schools across Edinburg closed due to safety concerns. All schools closed were part of the “same private finance initiative.” Moreover, there have been 20 other examples of defects found that are alike, in which checks were “carried out at public buildings.” Christine Jardine, a Scottish Liberal democrat who represents Edinburg West, states that the findings were “scandalous,” and “simply not good enough.” In addition, Jardine points out that the council is responsible for buildings to meet the highest of standards, and proper checks are necessary, in order to ensure the safety of their children. Lastly, Jardine suggests that the Scottish government should no longer rely on the funding from local authority. Instead, she proposes that the government must be accountable for “improving council funding.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Arizona Court of Appeals Awards Attorneys’ Fees in Quiet-Title Action

    September 20, 2017 —
    In Arizona, a party successfully quieting title to property may recover its attorneys’ fees if it satisfies three requirements: (1) the party requests a quitclaim deed from the party adversely claiming title twenty days before bringing the quiet-title action; (2) the party tenders five dollars for the execution and delivery of the deed; and (3) the adverse party fails to comply. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1103(B). Recently, in McCleary v. Tripodi, No. 2 CA-CV 2016-0145, 2017 WL 3723472 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2017), the Arizona Court of Appeals awarded attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party under this statute. In McCleary v. Tripodi, Mrs. Tripodi, who became the administrator of her husband’s estate upon his death, wrongfully recorded three deeds purporting to transfer property to herself. After unsuccessfully attempting to get Mrs. Tripodi to quitclaim the property, the plaintiffs filed a quiet-title action. The trial court agreed that the plaintiffs were the legal and rightful owners, granted summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor, and awarded attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Walton, Snell & Wilmer

    Grad Student Sues UC Santa Cruz over Mold in Residence

    November 13, 2013 —
    Matthew Richert, a graduate student at UC Santa Cruz, and his wife have filed a lawsuit against UC Santa Cruz, alleging the residence they rented from the university was contaminated with mold, causing problems for them and their children. The family noticed the signs of mold on the walls, but did not initially connect it with their daughter’s health problems, until they mentioned it to their doctor. The doctor sent a letter to the university requesting that the family be transferred to another unit if the mold problem could not be remedied. Mr. Richert made five such requests. Eventually the university moved the family to a hotel as they investigated the unit. The Richert’s unit remains unoccupied, and a Santa Cruz spokesperson noted that 60 of the units showed mold problems. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Nevada Update: Nevada Commissioner of Insurance Updates Burning Limits Statute with Emergency Regulation

    September 06, 2023 —
    Following significant backlash in reaction to its enactment of legislation prohibiting enforcement of any provisions in liability insurance policies dictating that defense costs are included within the limits of insurance, the Nevada Division of Insurance issued an emergency regulation further clarifying the law.1 The regulation modifies two key aspects of the original law:
    1. The term “policy of liability insurance,” as used in the statute, shall only mean those casualty insurance policies offered by insurers authorized under NRS 680A.060 and NRS 694C.230 to issue third-party liability insurance. In other words, the statute’s restrictions on eroding limits will no longer apply to “non-admitted” insurers.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

    Window Installer's Alleged Faulty Workmanship On Many Projects Constitutes Multiple Occurrences

    May 10, 2017 —
    Lawsuits filed for recovery due to the faulty design and installation of doors and windows by homeowners across the country were found to allege multiple occurrences. Pella Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. 53631 (C.D. Iowa March 31, 2017). The underlying lawsuits alleged that Pella Corporation's windows were defectively designed, manufactured, or installed, and allowed water intrusion to buildings that resulted in third-party property damage or personal injury. Pella sued Liberty Mutual for declaratory judgment and filed a motion for partial summary judgment to determine how many occurrences the underlying cases presented. Pella sought a determination that each of the 15 underlying cases presented one "occurrence" as the term was defined in the CGL policies issued by Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual argued that only three or four occurrences were presented, relying on common fact patterns. Pella argued that there were separate and distinct causes of different injuries and damage and thus, each underlying case constituted a separate occurrence. Liberty Mutual, on the other hand, highlighted language within the definition of "occurrence," which stated that an "occurrence" included "continuous or repeated exposure to the same general harmful conditions." The "substantially the same general harmful conditions" language dictated that the scope of "occurrence" be understood to be broad, such that various instances of damage-causing water intrusion in different times and places constituted "substantially the same general harmful conditions." 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

    Providing Notice of Claims Under Your Construction Contract

    April 02, 2014 —
    Craig Martin on his blog Construction Contractor Advisor explained the importance of knowing when to provide notice under your construction contract: “Time and time again, courts rule that contractors must follow notice requirements in order to submit a claim for additional time or compensation.” Martin cited the case JEM Contracting v. Morrison-Maierle, where the contractor provided verbal notice of a claim to the engineer, but failed to submit in writing until eighteen days later, which was past the notice requirement as stated in the contract. The judge denied the contractor’s claim and sided with the engineer and county. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of