BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs 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


    Is It Time to Get Rid of Retainage?

    Contractor Underpaid Workers, Pocketed the Difference

    A Downside of Associational Standing - HOA's Claims Against Subcontractors Barred by Statute of Limitations

    Build Back Better Includes Historic Expansion of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program

    Congratulations to Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, John Toohey, and Tyler Offenhauser for Being Recognized as 2022 Super Lawyers!

    Oracle Sues Procore, Claims Theft of Trade Secrets for ERP Integration

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (05/18/22)

    Detroit Craftsmen Sift House Rubble in Quest for Treasured Wood

    Virginia Chinese Drywall and pollution exclusion

    Victoria Kajo Named One of KNOW Women's 100 Women to KNOW in America for 2024

    Claim Against Broker for Failure to Procure Adequate Coverage Survives Summary Judgment

    Jobs Machine in U.S. Created More Than Burger Flippers Last Year

    Alaska Supreme Court Dismisses Claims of Uncooperative Pro Se Litigant in Defect Case

    Vacant Property and the Right of Redemption in Pennsylvania

    The Future of Construction Tech Is Decision Tech

    Construction Employers Beware: New, Easier Union Representation Process

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

    Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Requirements Adjusted

    Construction Defect Coverage Summary 2013: The Business Risks Shift To Insurers

    COVID-19 Could Impact Contractor Performance Bonds

    Colorado Court of Appeals Finds Damages to Non-Defective Property Arising From Defective Construction Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policy

    The General Assembly Seems Ready to Provide Some Consistency in Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

    No Coverage for Installation of Defective Steel Framing

    Quick Note: Mitigation of Damages in Contract Cases

    Los Angeles Warehousing Mecca Halts Expansion Just as Needs Soar

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Rose More Than Forecast to End 2014

    Meet Your Future Team Members: AI Agents

    Enforcement Of Contractual Terms (E.G., Flow-Down, Field Verification, Shop Drawing Approval, And No-Damage-For-Delay Provisions)

    The Case For Designers Shouldering More Legal Responsibility

    Five Pointers for Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in Texas

    Construction Defects and Commercial General Liability in Illinois

    Consequential Damages Flowing from Construction Defect Not Covered Under Florida Law

    Liability policy covers negligent construction: GA high court

    After 15 Years, Settlement Arrested at San Francisco's Millennium Tower

    Georgia Coal-to-Solar Pivot Shows the Way on Climate Regs

    You May Be Able to Dodge a Bullet, But Not a Gatling Gun

    2021 California Construction Law Update

    No Occurrence Where Contract Provides for Delays

    New York Court Holds That the “Lesser of Two” Doctrine Limits Recoverable Damages in Subrogation Actions

    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is Proud to Announce Jeannette Garcia Has Been Elected as Secretary of the Hispanic Bar Association of Orange County!

    Your Work Exclusion Applies to Damage to Tradesman's Property, Not Damage to Other Property

    Prime Contractor & Surety’s Recovery of Attorney’s Fees in Miller Act Lawsuit

    Ninth Circuit Holds that 1993 Budget Appropriations Language Does Not Compel the Corps of Engineers to use 1987 Wetlands Guidance Indefinitely

    Duty to Defend Triggered by Damage to Other Non-Defective Property

    Signs of a Slowdown in Luxury Condos

    3 Common Cash Flow Issues That Plague The Construction Industry

    Understanding Indiana’s New Home Construction Warranty Act

    Texas Supreme Court Rules That Subsequent Purchaser of Home Is Bound by Original Homeowner’s Arbitration Agreement With Builder

    Negligence Per Se Claim Based Upon Failure to Pay Benefits Fails

    Insurer's Attempt to Strike Experts in Collapse Case Fails
    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

    Construction Defect Suit Can Continue Against Plumber

    June 28, 2013 —
    The Kansas Court of Appeals has reversed a district court ruling that a homeowner’s suit against a plumber was barred under the economic loss doctrine. However, subsequently the Kansas Supreme Court “refused to extend the economic loss doctrine to homeowner claims against construction contractors.” In light of this, the appeals court sent the case back to the lower court. The case, Coker v. Siler, was brought by Gregory Coker, who had bought a home from J.M.C. Construction. JMC purchased an unfinished house from Michael D. Siler in August 2006. As part of the completion process, John M. Chaney, the president of JMC, installed the water line into the residence. Mr. Coker bought the home in September 2007. Starting in April 2008, Mr. Coker noticed that his water bills had increased. Mr. Coker could find “no evidence of a leak above the ground,” so he contacted JMC Construction. Mr. Chaney had R.D. Johnson Excavation dig up the water line, after which a gap was discovered that had been allowing water to flow under the foundation. In addition to the higher water bills, an engineer determined that the water “resulted in cracks in the wall and uneven doors.” Mr. Coker sued, Siler, J.M.C. and Chaney for negligence, breach of implied warranty, strict liability, and breach of express warranty. J.M.C. and Chaney requested a summary judgment. The court dismissed Mr. Coker’s claims of negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty on the basis of the economic loss doctrine, rejecting a petition from Mr. Coker to reconsider. The court, however, allowed Mr. Cocker to proceed with his claim of express warranty. In December, 2011, Mr. Coker accepted an offer from J.M.C. of $40,000. Mr. Coker then appealed the summary judgment, making the claim that while the court’s decision was based on Prendiville v. Contemporary Homes, Inc., this has now been overruled by David v. Hett. In this case, “the court ultimately found the rationale supporting the economic loss doctrine failed to justify a departure from a long time of cases in Kansas that establish a homeowner’s right to assert claims against residential contractors.” The appeals court concluded that “although the district court properly relied on the law as it existed at the time of its ruling, the intervening change in the law necessarily renders the conclusion reached by the district court erroneous as a matter of law.” In sending this case back to the district court, the appeals court noted that the lower court will need to determine if the “defendant accused of negligence did not have a duty to act in a certain manner towards the plaintiff,” in which case “summary judgment is proper. Mr. Coker claims that Mr. Chaney did indeed have this duty. Further, Mr. Coker claimed that Mr. Chaney had a duty arising out of implied warranty. The appeals court questioned whether the district court properly applied the economic loss doctrine to this claim, because despite being president of the construction company, Mr. Chaney “in his individual capacity as a plumber performing work for Coker, was not a party to the J.M.C. contract.” The court found that “Coker’s claim that Chaney breached an implied duty within such a contract fails as a matter of law.” However, the court did uphold Cocker’s claim of a contractor liability for injury to a third party, noting that “Chaney owed Coker a legal duty independent of Coker’s contact with J.M.C.” The appeals court left it to the district court to determine if the defect that caused the damage was present when the house left J.M.C.’s possession. The case was reversed and remanded “with directions to reinstate Coker’s claim of negligence against Chaney in his individual capacity as a plumber.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Loose Bolts Led to Sagging Roof in Construction Defect Claim

    February 10, 2012 —

    Though the sagging roof is neither leaking nor a safety hazard, the town of Waynesville, North Carolina is suing the builder of its new fire station, as reported in the Smoky Mountain News. The engineers who examined the roof found a substantial number of loose bolts in the roof trusses. Additionally, the trusses themselves have become bent.

    Tom Galloway, Waynesville’s Town Manager said “it needs to be remedied and fixed.” He said that the builder, Construction Logic, “never indicated a willingness to fix the roof.” The town is seeking the cost of repair, which Galloway estimated could be $400,000, and an additional $30,000 in damages. The suit states that Construction Logic failed to follow the plan specifications for the roof.

    Read the full story…

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

    Noncumulation Clause Limits Coverage to One Occurrence

    January 07, 2015 —
    Injury suffered by children of different families living at different times in the same apartment was limited to one occurrence under the policy's noncumulation clause. Nesmith v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 3350 (N.Y. Nov. 25, 2014). The landlord had a liability policy issued by Allstate. The declarations page stated there was a $500,000 limit for "each occurrence." The policy contained the following noncumulation clause:
    Regardless of the number of insured persons, injured persons, claims, claimants or policies involved, our total liability . . . for damages resulting from one accidental loss will not exceed the limit shown on the declarations page. All bodily injury . . . resulting from one accidental loss or from continuous or repeated exposure to the same general conditions is considered the result of one accidental loss.
    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

    Flood Policy Does Not Cover Debris Removal from Property

    May 07, 2015 —
    The Third Circuit affirmed the granting summary judgment to the insurer over a dispute as to debris removal under a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP). Torre v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4902 (3rd Cir. March 26, 2015). The Torres' property sustained substantial damage from Hurricane Sandy. Claims for flood damage were submitted to Liberty. Liberty paid a total of $235,751.68, which included the cost of removing debris from the house. An additional $15,520 for the cost of removing sand and other debris deposited on their land in front of and behind the Torres' home was denied on the grounds that the SFIP did not cover such removal. The Torres filed suit and cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. The district court denied the Torres' motion and granted Liberty's motion. 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

    Mississippi exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    June 07, 2011 —

    In Lafayete Ins. Co. v. Peerboom, No. 3:10cv336 (S.D. Miss. June 2, 2011), claimant homeowner Peerboom hired insured contractor Absolute to raise Peerboom’s house two feet to avoid future flooding. While Absolute was raising the house, it fell, resulting in physical injury to the home. Peerboom sued Absolute for negligence, breach of contract, and fraud, seeking damages for the destruction of the home. Absolute’s CGL insurer Lafayette defended under a reservation of rights and filed a declaratory judgment action.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

    Jury Awards 20 Million Verdict Against Bishop Abbey Homes

    April 08, 2014 —
    A Rockwall County, Texas “jury has awarded a $20.8 million verdict against a Dallas homebuilder for performing substandard work on a local family's home and refusing to accept responsibility,” according to a press release published in The Wall Street Journal. The lawsuit alleged that “the defendants were aware that the site of the Hales' future Highpoint Lake Estates home had significant foundation defects before construction began. The Hales said Mr. Halsey later promised that his company would take responsibility by fixing the structural defects that arose after construction, but he reneged and refused to repair the problems.” The award included “damages for the cost of repairs, lost value and additional penalties based on Mr. Halsey's actions and the defendants' ‘grossly negligent’ conduct, including violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The jury award includes attorneys' fees for the Hales' legal team.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut District Court to Review Proposed Class Action in Defective Concrete Suit

    July 13, 2017 —
    Thousands of Connecticut homeowners have fallen victim to a defective concrete epidemic. Over the last thirty years, the foundation in many homes, particularly in the Northeast region of the state, was built with a concrete aggregate that contained the mineral pyrrhotite. When exposed to the elements, including water and air, pyrrhotite oxidizes, resulting in cracking and disintegration over time. For Connecticut homeowners, this has resulted in disaster, both financially and to the foundations of their homes. Previously, many homeowners insurance policies provided coverage for a “collapse” caused by the “use of defective material . . . in construction, remodeling or renovation.” As the pyrrhotite epidemic became more prevalent, insurers altered the coverage afforded for a “collapse” in several ways that potentially minimized or eliminated coverage for these types of claims. Primarily, coverage for a “collapse” is now restricted to collapses that are “abrupt,” and coverage is excluded for buildings in danger of falling down or those that are still standing, even if evidence of cracking or settling is demonstrated. The insurers did not notify homeowners of the change. Thus, homeowners who renewed policies were not informed of a coverage reduction nor were they provided with a corresponding reduction in the amount of premium. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Casanova may be contacted at tlc@sdvlaw.com

    Century Communities Acquires Dunhill Homes Las Vegas Operations

    April 08, 2014 —
    According to Big Builder, “Colorado-based Century Communities” has acquired “the Las Vegas operations team and 1,849 lots of Dunhill Homes.” This brings Century’s “total land position of owned and controlled lots to 10,095, an increase of 21% since the end of 2013.” “More than the homes and land inventory, this acquisition allows us to add an experienced operations team, with a reputation of delivering quality homes in well-located communities,” stated Robert Francescon and Dale Francescon, Co-Chief Executive Officers of Century Communities, in a statement as quoted by Big Builder. “Additionally, Las Vegas remains a land constrained market, and we are now uniquely positioned within communities that would be very difficult to replicate today, with land inventory to drive future growth.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of