BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect 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


    Court Affirms Duty to Defend Additional Insured Contractor

    Brookfield to Start Manhattan Tower After Signing Skadden

    LA’s $1.2 Billion Graffiti Towers Put on Sale After Bankruptcy

    Montana Trial Court Holds That Youths Have Standing to Bring Constitutional Claims Against State Government For Alleged Climate Change-Related Harms

    Attorneys’ Fees and the American Arbitration Association Rule

    London Is Falling Down and It's Because of Climate Change

    California Supreme Court Rules Developers can be Required to Include Affordable Housing

    Spearin Doctrine 100 Years Old and Still Thriving in the Design-Build Delivery World

    Sioux City Building Owners Sue Architect over Renovation Costs

    Contingent Business Interruption Claim Denied

    Certificates as Evidence of Additional Insured Coverage Are All the Rage, But You Deserve Better

    Blackstone to Buy Apartments From Greystar in $2 Billion Deal

    Policy's Operation Classification Found Ambiguous

    Fraud and Construction Contracts- Like Oil and Water?

    New York Restrictions on Flow Through Provision in Subcontracts

    NTSB Cites Design Errors in Fatal Bridge Collapse

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Excess Can Sue Primary for Equitable Subrogation

    Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Duty to Defend When Case Law is Uncertain

    Saudi Arabia Awards Contracts for Megacity Neom’s Worker Housing

    The Cross-Party Exclusion: The Hazards of Additional Named Insured Provisions

    South Carolina Supreme Court Finds that Consequential Damage Arise From "Occurrence"

    How the New Dropped Object Standard Is Changing Jobsite Safety

    The Sky is Falling! – Or is it? Impacting Lives through Addressing the Fear of Environmental Liabilities

    Manhattan Luxury Condos Sit on Market While Foreign Buyers Wait

    Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case Triggered by Complaint's Allegations

    Is Equipment Installed as Part of Building Renovations a “Product” or “Construction”?

    15 Wilke Fleury Lawyers Recognized in 2020 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

    PSA: Virginia Repeals Its Permanent COVID-19 Safety Standard

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

    New York Court Discusses Evidentiary Standards for Policy Rescission Based on Material Misrepresentation

    When “Substantially Similar” Means “Fundamentally Identical”: Delaware Court Enforces Related Claim Provision to Deny D&O Coverage for Securities Class Action

    Is Drone Aerial Photography Really Best for Your Construction Projects?

    New Change Order Bill Becomes Law: RCW 39.04.360

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage

    New Nafta Could Settle Canada-U.S. Lumber War, Resolute CEO Says

    NEW DEFECT WARRANTY LAWS – Now Applicable to Condominiums and HOAs transitioning from Developer to Homeowner Control. Is Your Community Aware of its Rights Under the New Laws?

    Design Firm Settles over Construction Defect Claim

    Contractor’s Charge Of Improvements To Real Property Not Required For Laborers To Have Lien Rights

    Breach of an Oral Contract and Unjust Enrichment and Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

    Review of Recent Contractors State License Board Changes

    New York's De Blasio Unveils $41 Billion Plan for Affordable Housing

    California Supreme Court Allows Claim Under Unfair Competition Statute To Proceed

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Too Soon?”

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Remands Bad Faith Claim Against Title Insurer

    The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations

    Building Group Has Successful 2012, Looks to 2013

    Where Standing, Mechanic’s Liens, and Bankruptcy Collide

    Contractor Allegedly Injured after Slipping on Black Ice Files Suit

    Addressing Safety on the Construction Site

    The Murky Waters Between "Good Faith" and "Bad Faith"
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Addresses Recurring Asbestos Coverage Issues

    March 04, 2019 —
    In a pair of recent asbestos coverage decisions, a Pennsylvania federal court issued rulings addressing expedited funding orders, number of “occurrences,” and the applicability of aggregate limits under the Fourth Circuit’s Wallace & Gale approach. Zurn Industries, LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197481 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 20, 2018) Policyholder Zurn, a manufacturer and distributor of boilers, was named as a defendant in thousands of underlying asbestos-related bodily injury suits. After its primary insurers claimed exhaustion, Zurn moved on an expedited basis to require two of its excess insurers to each assume fifty percent of its defense and indemnity costs until they reached a permanent cost-sharing agreement. In denying Zurn’s expedited request for interim funding, the court held that the record was insufficient “in the opening stages of litigation, before discovery has occurred” to determine whether the underlying coverage had been properly exhausted but left the door open for Zurn to refile its motion on a more developed record. Reprinted courtesy of Craig O’Neill, White and Williams LLP and Laura Rossi, White and Williams LLP Mr. Levine may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Bill to Include Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Introduced in New Jersey

    December 04, 2013 —
    On November 25, Gary S. Schaer, a Democrat from Bergen and Passic, introduced a bill into the New Jersey legislature that would require insurers to cover faulty workmanship. The bill would require commercial liability insurance policies to cover “property damage or bodily injury resulting from faulty workmanship.” Policies that do not provide this coverage could not be offered in the state of New Jersey should the measure pass and be enacted into law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    University of Tennessee’s New Humanities Building Construction Set to Begin

    January 14, 2015 —
    Construction preparation of the Tennessee Volunteer’s $30.5 million new humanities building has begun, according to The Tennessean. The 80,000 square-foot facility will become the largest building on the university’s campus, and will feature 23 classrooms, 18 labs, 11 collaborative study areas, 56 offices, 20 adjunct faculty workrooms as well as an outdoor theater and courtyard. “This is a significant milestone in the history of the college,” President Jerry Faulkner told The Tennessean. “This building has been on our wish list for about 12 years in terms of wanting to have this facility available, so for the first time our humanities division is going to have a home of its own.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Three lawyers from Haight were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition

    September 30, 2019 —
    Congratulations to Haight’s attorneys who were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition Los Angeles, California William G. Baumgaertner for personal injury and product liability litigation for plaintiffs and defendants Michael Leahy for insurance law Denis Moriarty for insurance law Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys William G. Baumgaertner, Michael Leahy and Denis J. Moriarty Mr. Baumgaertner may be contacted at wbaum@hbblaw.com Mr. Leahy may be contacted at mleahy@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at dmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<

    March 01, 2012 —

    The buyer of a leaky home in Venice, California cannot be compelled to arbitration with the seller in a construction defect lawsuit, according to a decision in Lindemann v. Hume, which was heard in the California Court of Appeals. Lindemann was the trustee of the Schlei Trust which bought the home and then sued the seller and the builder for construction defects.

    The initial owner was the Hancock Park Trust, a real estate trust for Nicholas Cage. Richard Hume was the trustee. In 2002, Cage agreed to buy the home which was being built by the Lee Group. Cage transferred the agreement to the Hancock Park Trust. Hancock had Richard Nazarin, a general contractor, conduct a pre-closing walk through. They also engaged an inspector. Before escrow closed, the Lee Group agreed to provide a ten-year warranty “to remedy and repair any and all damage resulting from water infiltration, intrusion, or flooding due to the fact that the door on the second and third floors of the residence at the Property were not originally installed at least one-half inch (1/2”) to one inch (1”) above the adjacent outside patio tile/floor on each of the second and third floors.”

    Cage moved in and experienced water intrusion and flooding. The Lee Group was unable to fix the problems. Hume listed the home for sale. The Kamienowiczs went as far as escrow before backing out of the purchase over concerns about water, after the seller’s agent disclosed “a problem with the drainage system that is currently being addressed by the Lee Group.”

    The house was subsequently bought by the Schlei Trust. The purchase agreement included an arbitration clause which included an agreement that “any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.” The warranty the Lee Group had given to Hancock was transferred to the Schlei trust and Mr. Schlei moved into the home in May 2003.

    Lindemann enquired as to whether the work done would prevent future flooding. Nazarin sent Schlei a letter that said that measures had been taken “to prevent that situation from recurring.” In February, 2004, there was flooding and water intrusion. Lindemann filed a lawsuit against the Lee Group and then added the Hancock Park defendants.

    The Hancock Park defendants invoked the arbitration clause, arguing that Lindemann’s claims “were only tangentially related to her construction defect causes of action against the Lee Group.” On June 9, 2010, the trial court rejected this claim, ruling that there was a possibility of conflicting rulings on common issues of law. “With respect to both the developer defendants and the seller defendants, the threshold issue is whether there was a problem with the construction of the property in the first instance. If there was no problem with the construction of the property, then there was nothing to fail to disclose.” Later in the ruling, the trial court noted that “the jury could find there was no construction defect on the property, while the arbitration finds there was a construction defect, the sellers knew about it, and the sellers failed to disclose it.” The appeals court noted that while Hancock Park had disclosed the drainage problems to the Kamienowiczs, no such disclosure was made to Sclei.

    The appeals court described Hancock Park’s argument that there is no risk of inconsistent rulings as “without merit.” The appeals court said that the issue “is not whether inconsistent rulings are inevitable but whether they are possible if arbitration is ordered.” Further, the court noted that “the Hancock Park defendants and the Lee Group have filed cross-complaints for indemnification against each other, further increasing the risk of inconsistent rulings.”

    The court found for Lindemann, awarding her costs.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Connecticut Federal District Court Again Finds "Collapse" Provisions Ambiguous

    March 22, 2017 —
    The Federal District Court for the District of Connecticut has issued several decisions of late finding coverage for collapse despite the building not being reduced to rubble. The latest decision in this series is Metsack v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24062 (D. Conn. Feb. 21, 2017). The Metsack's property was insured by Allstate under policies issued from June 27, 1991 to September 9, 2009. From September 2009 to present, Liberty Mutual issued property policies to the insureds. Mr. Metsack built the insureds' home in 1992. The concrete basement walls used concrete supplied by JJ Mottes Company. 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

    Consequential Damages Can Be Recovered Against Insurer In Breach Of Contract

    July 22, 2019 —
    In a favorable case for insureds, the Fifth District Court of Appeal maintained that “when an insurer breaches an insurance contract, the insured is entitled to recover more than the pecuniary loss involved in the balance of the payments due under the policy in consequential damages, provided the damages were in contemplation of the parties at the inception of the [insurance] contract.” Manor House, LLC v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1403b (Fla. 5thDCA 2019) (internal citations and quotation omitted). Thus, consequential damages can be recovered against an insurer in a breach of contract action (e.g., breach of the insurance policy) if the damages can be proven and were in contemplation of the parties at the inception of the insurance contract. In Manor House, the trial court entered summary judgment against the insured holding the insured could not seek lost rental income in its breach of contract action against Citizens Property Insurance because the property insurance policy did not provide coverage for lost rent. However, the Fifth District reversed this ruling because the trial court denied the insured the opportunity to prove whether the parties contemplated that the insured, an apartment complex owner, would suffer lost rental income (consequential damages) if the insurer breached its contractual duties. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    December 20, 2012 —
    There was a significant increase in the number of open construction jobs during October, according to a report for the National Association of Home Builders. Working from preliminary data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the NAHB said that the number of open positions reached “levels and rates last seen in 2007.” As the data is still preliminary, the NAHB noted that the conclusions should be taken with caution. While there was a spike in job openings, the hiring of people to fill these positions hasn’t caught up with it, and there was a small decline in hires. But to return to the good news, there was also a drop in layoffs in that same period. Through October, about 8,000 people have been hired in the construction sector. The NAHB notes that this does not correspond with the recent increases with home construction. They suggest that “it may be the case that startups in the home building and remodeling sectors are being missed by the establishment survey.” Another possibility they raise is that already-employed construction workers are simply working more hours. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of