BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnesses
    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


    Is the Removal and Replacement of Nonconforming Work Economically Wasteful?

    California Supreme Court Hands Victory to Private Property Owners Over Public Use

    Fire Fears After Grenfell Disaster Set Back Wood Building in UK

    Drones Give Inspectors a Closer Look at Bridges

    Huh? Action on Construction Lien “Relates Back” Despite Notice of Contest of Lien

    Equipment Costs? It’s a Steal!

    A Termination for Convenience Is Not a Termination for Default

    New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

    A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Citizen Suits and the Summer of 2022

    Five Construction Payment Issues—and Solutions

    Neither Designated Work Exclusion nor Pre-Existing Damage Exclusion Defeat Duty to Defend

    Treble Damages Awarded After Insurer Denies Coverage for Collapse

    Licensing Mistakes That Can Continue to Haunt You

    While Construction Permits Slowly Rise, Construction Starts and Completions in California Are Stagnant

    Claim for Punitive Damages Based on Insurers' Alleged Bad Faith Business Practices Fails

    Colorado Court of Appeals holds that insurance companies owe duty of prompt and effective communication to claimants and repair subcontractors

    California Booms With FivePoint New Schools: Real Estate

    State-Fed Fight Heats Up Over Building Private Nuclear Disposal Sites

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

    Expired Contract Not Revived Due to Sovereign Immunity and the Ex Contractu Clause

    Another Law Will Increase Construction Costs in New York

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Brokers' MSJ on Duties Owed In Construction Defect Case

    Insurer Prevails on Summary Judgment for Bad Faith Claim

    Defect Claims Called “Witch Hunt”

    It’s Time to Start Planning for Implementation of OSHA’s Silica Rule

    New California Employment Laws Affect the Construction Industry for 2019

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    New LG Headquarters Project Challenged because of Height

    Do Construction Contracts and Fraud Mix After All?

    Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor's Employee

    Sarah P. Long Expands Insurance Coverage Team at Payne & Fears

    Texas Supreme Court Defines ‘Plaintiff’ in 3rd-Party Claims Against Design Professionals

    Hotel Owner Makes Construction Defect Claim

    Firm Sued for Stopping Construction in Indiana Wants Case Tried in Germany

    Court Finds That SIR Requirements are Not Incorporated into High Level Excess Policies and That Excess Insurers’ Payment of Defense Costs is Not Conditioned on Actual Liability

    New York City Construction: Boom Times Again?

    New Jersey Traffic Circle to be Eliminated after 12 Years of Discussion

    OSHA’s New Severe Injury and Fatality Reporting Requirements, Are You Ready?

    Best Lawyers Honors 48 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Recognizes Four Partners as 'Lawyers of the Year'

    Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment On Ground Not Asserted By Moving Party Upheld

    Developer's Novel Virus-killing Air Filter Ups Standard for Indoor Air Quality

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!

    Condo Board Goes after Insurer for Construction Defect Settlement

    Philadelphia Revises Realty Transfer Tax Treatment of Acquired Real Estate Companies

    Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben Obtains Federal Second Circuit Affirmance of Summary Judgment in Insurer’s Favor

    Get Your Contracts Lean- Its Better than Dieting

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage

    New York Revises Retainage Requirements for Private Construction Contracts: Overview of the “5% Retainage Law”

    Heathrow Speeds New-Runway Spending Before Construction Approval

    A Quick Virginia Mechanic’s Lien Timing Refresher
    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

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Inverse Condemnation Action

    June 02, 2016 —
    The South Carolina Court of Appeals found there was no coverage for an inverse condemnation action based upon the policy's pollution exclusion. South Carolina Ins. Reserve Fund v. E. Richland County Public Service District, 2016 S. C. App. LEXIS 32 (S.C. Ct. App. March 23, 2016). In 2010, Coley Brown filed a complaint against the East Richland County Public Service District ("District") for inverse condemnation, trespass, and negligence. The complaint alleged that the District had installed a sewage force main line and an air relief valve on Brown's street, and the valve released offensive odors on his property many times a day. The stench caused Brown to buy a new piece of property and move, but he was unable to sell the old property. The district tendered the complaint to the South Carolina Insurance Reserve Fund ("Fund"), but coverage was denied. 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

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Hacking Claim Under E&O Policy

    July 25, 2022 —
    On June 9, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held, on summary judgment, that an insured was not entitled to coverage under a Professional Errors and Omissions (E&O) policy for loss allegedly resulting from a hacking incident. See Construction Fin. Admin. Servs., Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., No. 19-0020, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103042 (E.D. Pa. June 9, 2022). Applying North Carolina and Pennsylvania law, the court reasoned that: (1) coverage was barred by the policy’s unauthorized computer access, or “breach,” exclusions; and (2) the insured violated a condition in the policy that required the insurer’s consent to settlements and the violation prejudiced the insurer. The insured, Construction Financial Administration Services, Inc. (CFAS), was a third-party fund administrator for construction contractors. In April 2018, the CFAS received email requests from what it believed to be one of its clients, SWF Constructors (SWF), to disburse $1.3 million from an SWF account to a foreign company. CFAS authorized the payments, despite not having received a copy of any executed agreement between SWF and the foreign company. After the funds were disbursed, SWF advised that it had not authorized or requested the payments to the foreign company. In response, CFAS placed approximately $1.2 million of recovered and borrowed funds into the SWF disbursement account. SWF then sent a letter advising CFAS that the requests from the foreign company did not include documentation required under the contract between SWF and CFAS. It was later determined that the emails had been initiated by a fraudster who had gained unauthorized access to the sender’s email account. Reprinted courtesy of Celestine Montague, White and Williams LLP and Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP Ms. Montague may be contacted at montaguec@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Chinese Demand Rush for Australia Homes to Stay, Ausin Says

    August 06, 2014 —
    Ausin Group (Finance) Pty, which offers property and mortgage broking in Australia to Chinese buyers, expects to sell two-thirds more homes and to double the amount of loans it arranges as demand from the mainland surges. The company forecasts A$1.5 billion ($1.4 billion) in sales of new residential properties in the year ending June 30, compared with A$900 million over the previous 12 months, Sydney-based Managing Director Joseph Zaja said in an interview yesterday. The value of mortgages the closely held company arranges through Australian banks is expected to climb to A$500 million in the 2015 calendar year, he said. Ausin is benefiting from surging demand from China, where the housing market is faltering. Chinese purchasers overtook Americans to become the biggest buyers of real estate in Australia in the 12 months through June 2013, plowing A$5.9 billion into commercial and residential property, a 42 percent increase from the previous 12 months. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nichola Saminather, Bloomberg
    Ms. Saminather may be contacted at nsaminather1@bloomberg.net

    Agrihoods: The Best of Both Worlds

    July 23, 2014 —
    Smithsonian Magazine reported on a new U.S. trend of blending farms and housing developments: The concept is called Development Supported Agriculture (DSA), or more commonly known as “Agrihoods.” In a DSA, “consumers pledge money or resources to support a farm operation, and in turn, receive a share of what it produces, but take the concept one step further by integrating the farm within residential developments.” Residents receive similar perks of being a part of a home owner association such as supported pools, tennis courts, and playgrounds through their contribution to the farm. The first DSA, Prairie Crossing, was built in Grayslake, Illinois to preserve land while adding about 350 residential homes. Willowsford, a new DSA being built in Ashburn Virginia, will have over 2,000 homes. Willowsford’s developers have preserved 2,000 acres, with 300 acres of farmland. The development will be broken into four villages, and each will have its own farm. Part of the popularity of DSAs is that they may “require less of an investment than other green space communities—for instance, communities planned around golf courses,” according to Smithsonian Magazine. “What does it cost to leave the open space alone in the first place? Almost nothing,” said Ed McMahon, the Charles E. Fraser chair on sustainable development and environmental policy at the Urban Land Institute, as quoted by Smithsonian Magazine. “A light bulb went off in the mind of savvy developers who said, ‘Jeez, I can build a golf course development without the golf course.’ So that led to designing communities around other green-space amenities such as a farm.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Coverage for Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

    November 28, 2022 —
    Finding faulty workmanship that did not cause property damage beyond the subcontractor's work, the court found there was no coverage under the CGL policy. Middlesex Ins. Co. v. Dixie Mech., Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175190 (N. D. Ga. Sept. 27, 2022).  The case involved a construction project on Elba Island, Georgia. IHI E&C International Corporation (IHI) filed suit against Robinson Mechanical Contractors ("Robinson") for faulty construction work, including a pipe rack and process module installation. The pipe racks allegedly contained defective welds. Robinson filed a third-party complaint against Patriot Modular, Inc. (Patriot), Robinson's subcontractor, for faulty work for IHI. Finally, Patriot filed a fourth-party complaint against Dixie Mechanical, Inc. (Dixie), alleging it subcontracted with Dixie to perform fabrication, welding, testing, and inspection of pipes under Patriot's subcontract with Robinson. Patriot contended that to the extent it was found liable to Robinson for any defective work, delays or breaches of contract for Dixie's work, Patriot was entitled to recover such amounts from Dixie. In this case, Dixie's insurer, Middlesex Insurance Company, sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or to indemnify Dixie. Middlesex contended that the claims of faulty workmanship in the underlying complaints constituted neither an "occurrence" nor "property damage." 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

    Risk Spotter Searches Internal Data Lakes For Loaded Words

    October 11, 2017 —
    A tech start-up recently announced that it has been granted seven U.S. patents for a system that applies a “deep learning” algorithm to examine corporate e-mail databases and flag those with message fields or attachments containing language that might increase risk for a company involved in a federal discrimination lawsuit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Sawyer, ENR
    Mr. Sawyer may be contacted at sawyert@enr.com

    Cooperating With Your Insurance Carrier: Is It a Must?

    January 02, 2024 —
    A majority of insurance policies require the insured to cooperate with the insurer. The cooperation clause generally states, “the insured agrees to Cooperate with us in the investigation, settlement or defense of the suit.” The “cooperation clause” is often an afterthought because once litigation has ensued an insured is focused on other important considerations. However, insureds should not forget that complying with the cooperation clause can make the difference between the insurer covering or denying a claim. The Cooperation Clause in Action The Court in HDI Glob. Specialty SE v. PF Holdings, LLC,1 highlighted the importance of cooperating with an insurance carrier. In the underlying litigation, residents of an apartment complex sued four entities, all insured by the same insurance policy: two were named insureds and two were additional insureds. The primary insurer provided a defense for the named insureds. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Susana Arce, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Arce may be contacted at SArce@sdvlaw.com

    Norristown, PA to Stop Paying Repair Costs for Defect-Ridden Condo

    February 10, 2014 —
    The city of Norristown, Pennsylvania has already paid “$3.4 million for construction repairs and legal expenses” for the 26-unit condominium on 770 Sandy Street, according to The Times Herald. Therefore city officials recently declared that “they will no longer pay the $40,000 annual cost for maintenance, electricity and repairs” for the building. “At some point, the folks that own it have to step up and take responsibility for it,” Norristown Council President William Caldwell told The Times Herald. “No later than February 28, the municipality will cease to provide or pay for maintenance of 770 Sandy Street.” Previously, Norristown had received court orders to repair the building, after numerous construction defects turned up including “missing firestops in numerous walls, missing grout and steel rebar in block-wall, emergency stair towers, faulty electrical wiring and no provision for firestopping in the first-floor garage ceiling.” City officials “were faulted by Montgomery County Common Pleas Court judges for not properly inspecting the construction.” Charles Madracchia, past Customers Bank attorney and current Homeowner attorney, is “continuing active litigation in both federal and state court.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of