BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code 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 Law Client Advisory: What The Recent Beacon Decision Means For Developers And General Contractors

    Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

    Maritime Law: An Albatross for Contractors Navigating Marine Construction

    National Demand Increases for Apartments, Refuting Calls for Construction Defect Immunity in Colorado

    Thanks for Four Years of Recognition from JD Supra’s Readers’ Choice Awards

    Blue-Sky Floods Take a Rising Toll for Businesses

    Michael Baker Intl. Settles Federal Pay Bias Allegations

    CGL Coverage Dispute Regarding the (J)(6) And (J)(7) Property Damage Exclusions

    August Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Appreciate at Faster Pace

    Public Projects in the Pandemic Pandemonium

    Statute of Limitations Bars Lender’s Subsequent Action to Quiet Title Against Junior Lienholder Mistakenly Omitted from Initial Judicial Foreclosure Action

    David McLain Recognized Among the 2021 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America© for Construction Law

    No Bond, No Recovery: WA Contractors Must Comply With WA Statutory Requirements Or Risk Being Barred From Recovery If Their Client Refuses To Pay

    Indiana Court of Appeals Holds That Lease Terms Bar Landlord’s Carrier From Subrogating Against Commercial Tenant

    WA Supreme Court Allows Property Owner to Sue Engineering Firm for Lost Profits

    Hunton Insurance Coverage Partner Lawrence J. Bracken II Awarded Emory Public Interest Committee’s 2024 Lifetime Commitment to Public Service Award

    Construction Contracts Need Amending Post COVID-19 Shutdowns

    Allegations Confirm Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Truck Hits Warning Beam That Falls, Kills Motorist at Las Vegas Bridge Project

    Don’t Waive Too Much In Your Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ruling On Certificates Of Merit And “Gist Of Action” May Make It More Difficult For An Architect Or Engineer To Seek An Early Dismissal

    Colorado Hotel Neighbors Sue over Construction Plans

    Examination of the Product Does Not Stop a Pennsylvania Court From Applying the Malfunction Theory

    Evolving Climate Patterns and Extreme Weather Demand New Building Methods

    Don’t Sign a Contract that Doesn’t Address Covid-19 (Or Pandemics and Epidemics)

    Climate Change a Factor in 'Unprecedented' South Asia Floods

    Hawaii Supreme Court Says Aloha to Insurers Trying to Recoup Defense Costs From Policyholders

    Fifth Circuit Requires Causal Distinction for Ensuing Loss Exception to Faulty Work Exclusion

    Hurricane Laura: Implications for Insurers in Louisiana

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Confirms: Construction Defect Claims Not Covered by CGL Policies

    Candis Jones Named “On the Rise” by Daily Report's Georgia Law Awards

    Less Than Perfectly Drafted Endorsement Bars Flood Coverage

    Shifting Fees and Costs in Nevada Construction Defect Cases

    Is Construction Defect Notice under Florida Repair Statute a Suit?

    Renters Who Bought Cannot Sue for Construction Defects

    Court Slams the Privette Door on Independent Contractor’s Bodily Injury Claim

    A Word to the Wise: The AIA Revised Contract Documents Could Lead to New and Unanticipated Risks - Part II

    2019 Promotions - New Partners at Haight

    Defects in Texas High School Stadium Angers Residents

    Illinois Joins the Pack on Defective Construction as an Occurrence

    Legal Fallout Begins Over Delayed Edmonton Bridges

    Product Liability Economic Loss Rule and “Other Property” Damage

    Formaldehyde-Free Products for Homes

    Don’t Spoil Me: Oklahoma District Court Rules Against Spoliation Sanctions

    Biden Unveils $2.3 Trillion American Jobs Plan

    Failing to Release A Mechanics Lien Can Destroy Your Construction Business

    Lewis Brisbois Appellate Team Scores Major Victory in Bad Faith Insurance Action

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twenty White and Williams Lawyers

    Water Damage: Construction’s Often Unnoticed Threat

    3D Printing: A New Era in Concrete Construction
    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

    Certificates Of Merit For NC Lawsuits Against Engineers And Architects? (Still No)(Law Note)

    April 22, 2019 —
    Certificates of Merit are documents intended to show that a true issue exists with a professional’s work, prior to that person being sued. While North Carolina does require that a person suing a medical provider first have the matter reviewed by a professional (and attest to that in the Complaint), there is no requirement for any review prior to a lawsuit against an architect, engineer, or surveyor. Thus, anyone can file a lawsuit against an engineer/architect/surveyor without first having their case eyeballed reviewed by another professional. Over the years, there have been attempts at adding a Certificate of Merit requirement to design professional lawsuits. See, for example, examples here: from 2005; from 2007; from 2011; and from 2013. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    Bailout for an Improperly Drafted Indemnification Provision

    February 11, 2019 —
    A recent opinion came out that held that even though an indemnification provision in a subcontract was unenforceable per Florida Statute s. 725.06, the unenforceable portion is merely severed out of the indemnification clause leaving the rest of the clause intact. In essence, an otherwise invalid indemnification clause is bailed out by this ruling (which does not even discuss whether this subcontract had a severability provision that states that if any portion of any provision in the subcontract is invalid, such invalid portion shall be severed and the remaining portion of the provision shall remain in full force and effect). This opinion arose from a construction defect case, CB Contractxors, LLC v. Allens Steel Products, Inc.,43 Fla.L.Weekly D2773a (Fla. 5thDCA 2018), where the general contractor, sued by an association, flowed down damages to subcontractors based on the contractual indemnification provision in the subcontracts. Subcontractors moved to dismiss the contractual indemnification claim because it was not compliant with Florida Statute s. 725.06. The indemnification provision required the subcontractors to indemnify the general contractor even for the general contractors own partial negligence, but failed to specify a monetary limitation on the extent of the indemnification as required by Florida Statute s. 725.06. (The indemnification clause in the subcontract was the standard intermediate form of indemnification that required the subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor for claims regardless of whether the claims were caused in part by the general contractor.) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    California Subcontractor Gets a Kick in the Rear (or Perhaps the Front) for Prematurely Recorded Mechanics Lien

    October 21, 2019 —
    California provides three statutorily recognized construction payment remedies: (1) mechanics liens; (2) stop payment notices; and (3) payment bond claims. Each is intended to provide payment protections for those who furnish labor, materials and services on a construction project. However, each is also different in important ways. One of those differences has to do with timing. Specifically, when the statutory payment remedy may be used by a claimant. Stop payment notices can be served at any time during a project even before a claimant has completed its work. However, mechanics liens may only be recorded and payment bond claims may only be made after a claimant has completed or ceased performing its work. In Precision Framing Systems, Inc. v. Luzuriaga, Case No. E069158 (August 29, 2019), the 4th District Court of Appeal examined whether a subcontractor had prematurely recorded a mechanics lien and, thereby, was prevented from filing a lawsuit to foreclose on its mechanics lien. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Insurance Law Alert: Ambiguous Producer Agreement Makes Agent-Broker Status a Jury Question

    September 10, 2014 —
    In Douglas v. Fidelity National Ins. (No. A137645; filed 8/29/14), a California appeals court held that it was a jury question whether a retail insurance service with limited binding authority should be deemed a broker or an agent for the purpose of determining if application misrepresentations would void coverage. In Douglas, the homeowners needed insurance for a house they had used as a group home. They sought coverage from Cost-U-Less, which provided personal lines insurance from, among others, Fidelity National Insurance Company. According to the couple’s wife, she went to a Cost-U-Less office where she answered application questions from a person on the telephone, who was later identified as an employee of another company, InsZone. InsZone had a producer contract with Fidelity. In practice, InsZone would be contacted by Cost-U-Less via telephone, at which point an InsZone employee would verbally solicit information from the client, with the information being entered into a computer by the InsZone employee and then transmitted electronically to Fidelity. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hunton Andrews Kurth Associate Cary D. Steklof Selected to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite Up & Comers List for 2019

    September 09, 2019 —
    Hunton Andrews Kurth’s insurance coverage practice is proud to congratulate Cary D. Steklof for being selected by his peers to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite Up & Comers list for 2019. A total of 131 attorneys under the age of 40 throughout the state of Florida were recognized for their leadership in the law and their communities. Cary was one of only seven attorneys selected for their skill and counsel in the area of insurance. We congratulate Cary and all of the recipients of this award who have distinguished themselves for their superior advocacy, knowledge, and accomplishments as young professionals. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
    Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

    Another Guilty Plea In Nevada Construction Defect Fraud Case

    April 25, 2012 —

    The eleventh defendant has entered a guilty plea in the ongoing federal investigation of construction defect fraud in the Las Vegas area. Mahin Quintero plead guilty to producing a false authentication feature, a misdemeanor. Ms. Quintero’s part in the scheme was to falsely authenticate signatures on loan documents for straw buyers. Ms. Quintero stated in court that she had been ordered to destroy her notary book three years ago. According to her plea bargain, the straw buyers did not appear in front of her when she notarized their signatures. As part of the scheme, the straw buyers would take control of homeowners associates, sending construction defect complaints and repairs to favored firms.

    Read the full story…

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

    Ambiguity in Pennsylvania’s Statute of Repose Finally Cleared up by Superior Court

    October 17, 2023 —
    In an unpublished opinion from the Pennsylvania Superior Court handed down on August 31, 2023, a long-standing disagreement about the wording of Pennsylvania's Statute of Repose was finally resolved. In Pennsylvania, “a civil action or proceeding brought against any person lawfully performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision or observation of construction or construction of any improvement to real property must be commenced within 12 years after completion of construction of such improvement” to recover most forms of damages that are sought in these kinds of cases. A statute of repose is different than a statute of limitations. A statute of repose is a hard line that does not shift. There is no discovery rule with a statute of repose. Most, if not all, states have statutes of repose for construction. The Pennsylvania statute of repose is among the longest in the country. It can be even longer – up to 14 years – if the injury (including property damage) or wrongful death “shall occur more than 10 and within 12 years after completion of construction.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mark L. Parisi, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Parisi may be contacted at parisim@whiteandwilliams.com

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

    July 30, 2019 —
    In McMillin Homes Construction v. Natl. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (No. D074219, filed 6/5/19) a California appeals court held that a “care, custody or control” exclusion did not bar coverage for defense of a general contractor as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s policy, because the exclusion requires exclusive control, but the facts and allegations posed a possibility of shared control with the subcontractor. McMillin was the general contractor on a housing project and was added as an additional insured to the roofing subcontractor’s policy pursuant to the construction subcontract. The homeowners sued, including allegations of water intrusion from roof defects. McMillin tendered to the roofing subcontractor’s insurer, which denied a defense based on the CGL exclusion for damage to property within McMillin’s care, custody or control. In the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, McMillin argued that the exclusion required complete or exclusive care, custody or control by the insured claiming coverage, which was not the case for McMillin. The insurer argued that the exclusion said nothing about complete or exclusive care, custody or control. Further, the intent to exclude coverage for damage to any and all property in McMillin’s care, custody or control, to whatever degree, was demonstrated by the fact that the additional insured endorsement in question was not an ISO CG2010 form, but a CG2009 form, which expressly adds a care, custody or control exclusion to the additional insured coverage not found in the CG2010 form. The argument was that the CG2009 form evidences an intent to conclusively eliminate coverage for property in the additional insured’s care, custody or control. In addition, the insurer argued that this result was also reinforced by its inclusion of an ISO CG2139 endorsement in the roofer’s policy, which eliminated that part of the “insured contract” language of the CGL form, defining an “insured contract” as “[t]hat part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business . . . under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to a third person or organization.” The insurer’s argument was that by having eliminated coverage for contractual indemnity or hold harmless agreements, it had “closed the loop” of eliminating additional insured coverage for construction defect claims. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of