BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projects
    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 Your Home Improvement Contract Putting You At Risk?

    'Taylor Swift Is an Economic Phenomenon': CE's Q1 2024 Economic Update and Forecast

    Miller Act Claim for Unsigned Change Orders

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

    Alabama Supreme Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect to Contractor's own Product

    Advice to Georgia Homeowners with Construction Defects

    New York Bridge to Be Largest Infrastructure Project in North America

    Harvey's Aftermath Will Rattle Construction Supply Chain, Economists Say

    Construction Defect Settlement in Seattle

    Newmeyer & Dillion Ranked Fourth Among Medium Sized Companies in 2016 OCBJ Best Places to Work List

    Navigating the Hurdles of Florida Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Carwash Prosecutors Seek $1.6 Billion From Brazil Builders

    Significant Issues Test Applies to Fraudulent Claims to Determine Attorney’s Fees

    Florida Adopts Less Stringent Summary Judgment Standard

    Court Upholds Denial of Collapse Coverage Where Building Still Stands

    Construction Defect Leads to Death of Worker

    Can You Really Be Liable For a Product You Didn’t Make? In New Jersey, the Answer is Yes

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Listed in the Best Lawyers in America© 2017

    EPA Announces that January 2017 Revised RMP Rules are Now Effective

    Four Dead After Crane Collapses at Google’s Seattle Campus

    A Look at Business and Professions Code Section 7031

    Force Majeure, Construction Delays, Labor Shortages and COVID-19

    Vaccine Mandate Confusion Continues – CMS Vaccine Mandate Restored in Some (But Not All) US States

    Florida Lawmakers Fail to Reach Agreement on Condominium Safety Bill

    The Investors Profiting Off Water Scarcity

    California’s Fifth Appellate District Declares the “Right to Repair Act” the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    Case-Shiller Redo Shows Less Severe U.S. Home-Price Slump

    New Survey Reveals Present-Day Risks of Asbestos Exposure in America - 38% in High-Risk Jobs, 47% Vulnerable through Second-Hand Exposure

    Buy Clean California Act Takes Effect on July 1, 2022

    Contract, Breach of Contract, and Material Breach of Contract

    Sometimes it Depends on “Whose” Hand is in the Cookie Jar

    Court Finds That Limitation on Conditional Use Permit Results in Covered Property Damage Due to Loss of Use

    Policy Sublimit Does Not Apply to Business Interruption Loss

    Broken Buildings: Legal Rights and Remedies in the Wake of a Collapse

    Unfortunate Event Test Leads to Three Occurrences

    Administration Seeks To Build New FBI HQ on Current D.C. Site

    How Algorithmic Design Improves Collaboration in Building Design

    Construction Contract Basics: Indemnity

    Settlement Agreement? It Ain’t Over ‘Til it’s . . . Final, in Writing, Fully Executed, and Admissible

    Florida Federal Court Reinforces Principle That Precise Policy Language Is Required Before An Insurer Can Deny Coverage Based On An Exclusion

    New Notary Language For Mechanics Lien Releases and Stop Payment Notice Releases

    Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 38 White and Williams Lawyers

    Housing Stocks Rally at End of November

    Orlando Commercial Construction Permits Double in Value

    What’s the Best Way to “Use” a Construction Attorney?

    China Bans Tallest Skyscrapers Following Safety Concerns

    Free Texas MCLE Seminar at BHA Houston June 13th

    Ambiguous Application Questions Preclude Summary Judgment on Rescission Claim
    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

    Insurer Must Defend Construction Defect Claims

    October 07, 2016 —
    The federal district court found that under New York law, the insurer had a duty to defend construction defect claims where damage to property other than the insured's work product was possible. Am.Home Assur. Co. v. Allan Window Techs., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101118 (S.D. N. Y. Aug 2, 2016). Kent Avenue Property ("Kent") sued Allan Window Technologies, Ltd. ("Allan"), alleging that Allan entered a written contract for the design, manufacture, assembly and installation of the window wall systems for a residential condominium building. Pursuant to the contract, Allan agreed to correct all work rejected as defective and to bear all costs for correcting the work. According to the complaint, the window wall systems and vent windows installed by Allan were not water-tight or air-tight, and therefore did not meet the air and water penetration requirements of the contract.The contract had an indemnification provision under which Allan agreed to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Kent from all losses, claims, lawsuits, etc. arising out of damage or injury to property at the project site. Kent sued for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of warranty, and (3) contractual indemnity. American Home agreed to defend Allan under a full reservation of rights. American Home then sued for a declaratory judgment to establish it had no duty to defend or indemnify. 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

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- A Wrap Up

    November 15, 2022 —
    Over the past four weeks, I’ve “mused” on the “stages” of a construction dispute. What started as a kernel of thought in my mind turned into what has seemed to be a popular set of four posts that I hope were both informative and interesting. Because of the great feedback I’ve gotten, I thought that I’d consolidate the posts into one so that my readers (thank you, by the way) will have them all in one place. Here they are: The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim– This post discussed the steps for setting out a claim under your construction contract and the steps to lay the groundwork should you need to move forward with a more formal means of collection. The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 2- Increase the Heat– This post discussed various methods to increase the heat on the party with whom you have a claim prior to litigation or arbitration. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Testimony from Insureds' Expert Limited By Motion In Limine

    October 21, 2015 —
    The court considered the scope of testimony to be offered by the insureds' expert regarding a policy written for sanitation districts. Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewage Bd. v. Am. Alternative Ins. Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112210 (N.D. N.Y. Aug. 25, 2015). The city of Binghamton and the city's Sewage Board sued American Alternative Insurance Corporation (AAIC) for coverage for a collapsed wall. AAIC sought the limit to testimony of the insureds' expert, Paul B. Nielander, through a motion in limine. AAIC argued that Nielander was not qualified as an expert in interpreting insurance policies. His knowledge and experience was limited to insurance practices in other states and the words contained in policies other than AAIC policies. He had no experience with (i) negotiating, drafting, or performing under an AAIC policy, (ii) handling claims or interpreting policies written in New York State, or (iii) drafting policies or otherwise participating in what he conceded was a "niche market" of providing insurance to sanitation districts. Further, Neilander was not qualified to offer expert analysis of when the structural failure of the wall occurred because he had no training or experience as an engineer. 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

    Hiring Subcontractors with Workers Compensation Insurance

    January 10, 2018 —
    You want to hear more on the POWER of statutory workers compensation immunity? Well, here it is, because as I have mentioned in the past, workers compensation immunity is powerful reinforcing the importance for contractors to ensure the subcontractors they hire absolutely have workers compensation insurance. Likewise, subcontractors want to ensure the subcontractors they hire also have workers compensation insurance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company

    October 05, 2020 —
    In Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., __F.3d__(July 2, 2020), the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following questions to the Nevada Supreme Court in connection with a contribution action for defense costs filed by Zurich American Insurance Company and American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company (“Zurich”) against Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (“Ironshore”) with respect to the defense and settlement of 14 construction defect lawsuits on behalf of eight subcontractors (“lawsuits”) insured by both companies:
    Whether, under Nevada law, the burden of proving the applicability of an exception to an exclusion of coverage in an insurance policy falls on the insurer or the insured? Whichever party bears such a burden, may it rely on evidence extrinsic to the complaint to carry its burden, and if so, is it limited to extrinsic evidence available at the time the insured tendered the defense of the lawsuit to the insurer?
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Velladao may be contacted at Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    August 04, 2011 —

    In the US District Court for Illinois, Judge William Hibber has rejected the request for summary judgment sought by the developers of a condominium building in the case of Nautilus Ins. Co. v. 1735 W. Diversey, LLC (the insureds). The insureds renovated a building at 1735 W. Diversey, Chicago, converting it into condominiums. After the project was completed and all units sold, and a condominium association form, one of the owners found that unit suffered leaks during rainstorms. The condo board hired a firm, CRI, to investigate the cause of the leakage. CRI found “water infiltration through the exterior brick masonry walls, build-up of efflorescence on the interior surfaces of the masonry, and periodic spalling of portions of the brick masonry.”

    The redevelopment firm had purchased coverage from Nautilus. “Shortly after the Board filed its first complaint, the Insureds tendered the mater to Nautilus and requested that it indemnify and defend them from the Board's underlying claims. Nautilus, however, rejected the Insureds’ tender and denied coverage under both insurance policies.” Nautilus stated that the water leakage did not constitute an occurrence under the policies. The court cited these policies in which an occurrence is defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” The Illinois courts have determined that construction defects are not accidents.

    The court concluded that the insured did not bring forth claims within the coverage of the policies and denied the motion for summary judgment.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Pinterest Nixes Big San Francisco Lease Deal in Covid Scaleback

    September 21, 2020 —
    Pinterest Inc. canceled a large office lease at a building to be constructed near its San Francisco headquarters, marking one of the most significant moves yet by a big tech company to scale back real estate plans in the city amid the Covid-19 pandemic. “As we analyze how our workplace will change in a post-Covid world, we are specifically rethinking where future employees could be based,” Todd Morgenfeld, Pinterest’s chief financial officer and head of business operations, said in a statement Friday. The social-sharing service is paying an $89.5 million termination fee to terminate its lease for 490,000 square feet (45,500 square meters) of space. It will keep its existing offices in the city. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sophie Alexander, Bloomberg

    Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

    June 10, 2015 —
    In Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, et al. (No. D063992, filed 5/28/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a controversial plan to eliminate vehicles from various plazas in historic Balboa Park. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered a question of first impression involving the interpretation of San Diego Municipal Code section 126.0504. Balboa Park, designated a National Historic Landmark in 1940, is a large urban park in the center of San Diego. The City of San Diego (“City”) recently approved a proposed plan (“Project”) to eliminate vehicles from the plazas within the Balboa Park complex and to return the plazas to purely pedestrian zones. Subsequently, a community group named Save Our Heritage Organisation (“SOHO”) filed a petition for a writ of mandate alleging, among other things, the City erroneously approved the Project. SOHO contended Municipal Code section 126.0504 mandated two key findings be made before the Project could be approved: (1) that the intended purpose of the property would not be adversely affected; and (2) without the proposed project, the property would not be put to a “reasonable beneficial use.” SOHO argued that although the City made the requisite findings, those findings lacked substantial evidentiary support. The trial court agreed with SOHO and directed the City to rescind the site development permit. The City argued on appeal that Municipal Code section 126.0504 vested it with “discretion to make a qualitative determination of whether an existing use of the property, even if deemed beneficial, is also a reasonable use of that property under all of the facts and circumstances applicable to the particular property in question.” The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed. Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of