BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut testifying construction 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


    Keeping KeyArena's Landmark Lid Overhead at Climate Pledge Arena Redevelopment Is A 22,000-Ton Balancing Act

    Formal Opinion No. 2020-203: How A Lawyer Is to Handle Access to Client Confidential Information and Anticipation of Potential Security Issues

    Five Pointers for Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in Texas

    SB800 Is Now Optional to the Homeowner?

    On the Ten Year Anniversary of the JOBS Act A Look-Back at the Development of Crowdfunding

    Real-Estate Pros Fight NYC Tax on Wealthy Absentee Owners

    Hawaii Federal District Court Remands Coverage Dispute

    Trump Soho May Abandon Condos to Operate Mainly as Hotel

    White House Seeks $310M To Fix Critical San Diego Wastewater Plant

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

    Montana Significantly Revises Its Product Liability Laws

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

    Claim for Consequential Damages Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2024 New York – Metro Super Lawyers®

    Don’t Let Construction Problems Become Construction Disputes (guest post)

    Illinois Attorney General Warns of Home Repair Scams

    Chicago’s Bungalows Are Where the City Comes Together

    Coverage Doomed for Failing Obtain Insurer's Consent for Settlement

    How the Cumulative Impact Theory has been Defined

    FEMA Administrator Slams Failures to Prepare, Evacuate Before Storms

    Insurer's Refusal to Consider Supplemental Claim Found Improper

    $48 Million Award and Successful Defense of $135 Million Claim

    Biden Unveils $2.3 Trillion American Jobs Plan

    Illusory Insurance Coverage: Real or Unreal?

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Court Addresses Damages Under Homeowners Insurance Policy

    Gordie Howe Bridge Project Team Looks for a Third Period Comeback

    Construction Law Advisory: Mechanical Contractor Scores Victory in Prevailing Wage Dispute

    Buy a House or Pay Off College? $1.2 Trillion Student Debt Heats Up in Capital

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Excess Can Sue Primary for Equitable Subrogation

    Massive Wildfire Near Boulder, Colo., Destroys Nearly 1,000 Homes and Businesses

    Ninth Circuit Finds Policy’s Definition of “Policy Period” Fatal to Insurer’s “Related Claims” Argument

    Customer’s Agreement to Self-Insure and Release for Water Damage Effectively Precludes Liability of Storage Container Company

    House Passes Bill to Delay EPA Ozone Rule

    Not All Design-Build Projects are Created Equal

    Ohio Supreme Court Holds No Occurence Arises from Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

    Classify Workers Properly to Avoid Expensive Penalties

    HOA Foreclosure Excess Sale Proceeds Go to Owner

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (4/24/24) – Omni Hotels Hit with Cyberattack, Wisconsin’s Low-Interest Loans for Home Construction, and Luxury Real Estate Sales Increase

    Insureds' Summary Judgment Motion on Mold Limitation Denied

    Used French Fry Oil Fuels London Offices as Buildings Go Green

    Does a Landlord’s Violation of the Arizona Residential Landlord-Tenant Act Constitute Negligence Per Se?

    Keeping Your Workers Safe When Air Quality Isn't

    Ohio School Board and Contractor Meet to Discuss Alleged Defects

    “Unwinnable”: Newark Trial Team Obtains Unanimous “No Cause” Verdict in Challenging Matter on Behalf of NYC Mutual Housing Association

    Settlement Reached on Troubled Harbor Bridge in Corpus Christi, Texas

    Federal Judge Vacates CDC Eviction Moratorium Nationwide

    Roots of Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Reach Back a Decade

    Turner Construction Selected for Anaheim Convention Center Expansion Project

    California Supreme Court Finds Vertical Exhaustion Applies to First-Level Excess Policies
    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

    New York Appellate Division: Second Department Contradicts First Department, Denying Insurer's Recoupment of Defense Costs for Uncovered Claims

    March 01, 2021 —
    New York law has historically allowed insurers to recoup defense costs paid on behalf of an insured if there is ultimately no coverage for the underlying action, provided that the insurer reserved its rights to seek reimbursement. On December 30, 2020, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department declined to follow this longstanding principle in American Western Home Insurance Co. v. Gjonaj Realty & Mgt. Co.,1 by holding that the insurer was not entitled to recoup defense costs, even where it was determined that the claim was not covered under the insurance policy. In American W. Home Ins. Co., the insureds were named as defendants in an underlying personal injury action. More than four years after the accident, and a $900,000 default judgment against the insureds, they tendered the lawsuit to their commercial general liability insurer, American Western Home Insurance Company (“American”). American denied coverage based on untimely notice, but after the default judgment was subsequently vacated, it agreed to defend the underlying action subject to a reservation of rights. The reservation of rights specifically reserved American’s right to deny coverage if the vacatur of the default judgment against the insureds was reversed. Further, American reserved its right to recover the costs of defending the underlying litigation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jasjeet K. Sahani, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Sahani may be contacted at JSahani@sdvlaw.com

    Reports of the Death of SB800 are Greatly Exaggerated – The Court of Appeal Revives Mandatory SB800 Procedures

    September 03, 2015 —
    In a 20 page opinion, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth District repudiated the holding of Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 (“Liberty Mutual”), and held that plaintiffs in construction defect actions must comply with the statutory pre-litigation inspection and repair procedures mandated by SB800 (the “Act”) regardless of whether they plead a cause of action for violation of the Act. The Case, McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (Carl Van Tassell), (Ct. of Appeal F069370) breathes new life into the Act’s right to repair requirements, and reinforces the Act’s stated purpose of seeking to limit the number of court cases by allowing a builder to resolve construction defect claims by agreeing to repair the homeowners’ residence. In McMillin, 37 homeowners filed a lawsuit against McMillin, the builder of their homes, alleging eight causes of action, including strict products liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranty. Plaintiffs’ third cause of action alleged violations of the Act. The plaintiffs did not follow the Act’s notification procedures and filed their lawsuit without providing McMillin with an opportunity to repair the alleged defects. Plaintiffs and McMillin attempted to negotiate a stay of the lawsuit to complete the Act’s prelitigation procedures. When talks broke down, plaintiffs dismissed the third cause of action and contended they were no longer required to follow the Act’s prelitigation procedures. McMillin filed a motion to stay with the trial court. The trial court denied McMillin’s motion concluding that under Liberty Mutual, “[plaintiffs] were entitled to plead common law causes of action in lieu of a cause of action for violation of the building standards set out in [the Act], and they were not required to submit to the prelitigation process of the Act when their complaint did not allege any cause of action for violation of the Act.” Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Builders Seek to Modify Scaffold Law

    June 28, 2013 —
    New York’s scaffold law dates back to 1885 and requires contractors and building owners to take measures to protect worker from falls through “proper protection.” And although the law is more than 125 years old, Lou Colettie of the Building Trades Employers Association clams that the law “is going to destroy the construction industry.” On the other side, a former director of the NYC Central Labor Council says that builders want to get rid of the law because of “greed.” The New York Daily News notes that when workers using scaffolds or ladders are injured, the contractor must prove the site was safe. According to the claims of the building industry, this would let workers get settlements if their injuries were their own fault, such as working while intoxicated or failing to observe their employer’s safety procedures. A bill is currently working its way through the New York legislature that would make the employee’s actions relevant in an injury lawsuit. There have been past unsuccessful attempts to repeal the law, this year opponents are pushing to just amend it. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Berkeley Researchers Look to Ancient Rome for Greener Concrete

    June 28, 2013 —
    While modern concrete often crumbles after fifty years, some concrete laid down during the Roman Empire is still strong, even after 2,000 years. Researchers at UC Berkeley have been puzzling over the secrets of Roman concrete, using samples from a breakwater near Naples. The breakwater was built about 37 BC, and the concrete is still strong. Unlike modern concrete, the Romans made theirs with a mixture of lime and volcanic ash. Paulo Monteiro, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, noted that one of the drawbacks of Roman cement was that it hardens more slowly than modern concrete. An advantage is that it is more environmentally friendly, and the researchers are trying to determine if volcanic ash cement would be a good substitute. Professor Montiero hopes that fly ash and volcanic ash cements “could replace 40 percent of the world’s demand for Portland cement.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida Enacts Property Insurance Overhaul for Benefit of Policyholders

    July 05, 2023 —
    Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (June 13, 2023) – On June 1, 2023, Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law CS/SB 7052 (the Act), increasing consumer protection and insurer accountability in Florida. The newly enacted and amended statutes under CS/SB 7052 bolster policyholder protections and impose greater insurer oversight, including heightened penalties for insurer misdeeds in the state under a new law that will take effect on July 1, 2023 (this legal alert does not address all of the statutory revisions associated with the Act). As House Speaker Paul Renner noted, “The insurance legislation signed by Governor DeSantis today . . . not only empowers homeowners, but also cultivates market-driven competition, ultimately leading to lower costs.” Statutory Revisions Regarding Insurance Coverage The Act prohibits authorized insurers from cancelling or nonrenewing a property insurance policy for a residential property or dwelling that was damaged by any covered peril until the earlier of: (a) when the property has been repaired; or (b) one year after the insurer issues the final claim payment. The Act also expands current law prohibiting authorized insurers from cancelling or nonrenewing a residential property insurance policy until 90 days after repairs are completed for damages resulting from a hurricane or wind loss that is the subject of a state of emergency declared by the Governor and for which the Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) has issued an emergency order. See Fla. Stat. §627.4133(2)(d)(1)(a) and (b) (Notice of cancellation, nonrenewal, or renewal premium). Reprinted courtesy of Laura Farrant, Lewis Brisbois and Bradley S. Fischer, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Farrant may be contacted at Laura.Farrant@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Fischer may be contacted at Bradley.Fischer@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project.

    January 31, 2018 —
    According to a quick Google search the term “holding the bag” comes from the mid eighteenth century and means be left with the onus of what was originally another’s responsibility. Nobody wants to be left holding the bag. But that is the situation our client (subcontractor) found themselves in when upon completion of a public project the general contractor went out of business before paying the remaining amount due and owing to our client. Under Nebraska law, liens are not allowed against public projects. Instead the subcontractor is to make a claim on the payment and performance bond secured by the general contractor at the start of the project. In our case, the general contractor never secured a bond on which to make a claim; consequently, leaving our client holding the bag. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sean Minaham, Lamson, Dugan and Murrary, LLP
    Mr. Minahan may be contacted at sminahan@ldmlaw.com

    Policy's Operation Classification Found Ambiguous

    May 21, 2014 —
    Property damage caused by a subcontractor's sheet piling was found to be within the policy's operation classification, which included "grading of land." Canal Indemn. Co. v. Margaretville of NSM, Inc., No. 13-13541 (11th Cir. April 15, 2014). Canal issued a CGL policy to the insured. The policy had a classification limitation provision: “This insurance applies to bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, advertising injury or medical expense arising out of only those operations that are classified and shown on the Commercial General Liability Coverage Declarations . . .” The policy's Declarations, in turn, referred to the operation classification as "Grading of Land - INCL. Borrowing, Filling or Back Filling." The policy did not define these terms. 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

    Does the New Jersey Right-To-Repair Law Omit Too Many Construction Defects?

    January 06, 2012 —

    A post on the blog of Liberty Building Forensics Group find fault with the New Jersey Home Warranty and Builders’ Registration Act for not being stringent enough. The poster notes the coverage given under the bill. In the first year, builders are responsible to remedy faulty workmanship and materials and major structural defects. While other protections expire in the first or second year, there is a ten year coverage of major construction defects.

    The blogger finds fault with the exclusion New Jersey law places on these claims, arguing that “due to the stringent definition of ‘major construction defects,” the warranty affords no coverage unless the house is practically collapsing.” The bill excludes leaks, cracks, and mold, and further limits claims if the homeowner has failed to inform the builder or insurer of defects, failure to maintain the home, and alterations made by the homeowner.

    The intent of the New Jersey law is given as “requiring that newly constructed homes conform to certain construction and quality standards as well as to provide buyers of new homes with insurance-backed warranty protection in the event such standards are not met.” It’s argued in the piece that it instead serves to “strip homeowners of any meaningful means of recovery for discovered construction defects.”

    Read the full story…

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