BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut delay claim 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


    LEEDigation: A Different Take

    Zillow Seen Dominating U.S. Home Searches with Trulia

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    Nader Eghtesad v. State Farm General Insurance Company

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Declarant Consent Provision to Amend Arbitration Out of Declarations

    Several Lewis Brisbois Partners Recognized by Sacramento Magazine in List of Top Lawyers

    Is Everybody Single? More Than Half the U.S. Now, Up From 37% in '76

    Appeals Court Affirms Civil Engineer Owes No Duty of Care to General Contractor

    City Drops Impact Fees to Encourage Commercial Development

    Contractor Prevails in Part Against CalOSHA in Valley Fever Case

    History and Gentrification Clash in a Gilded Age Resort

    Coronavirus and Contract Obligations

    Illinois Legislature Passes Bill Allowing Punitive Damages In Most Wrongful Death Actions

    Feds Outline Workforce Rules for $39B in Chip Plant Funding

    You Are Not A “Liar” Simply Because You Amend Your Complaint

    Retrofitting Buildings Is the Unsexy Climate Fix the World Needs

    San Diego Appellate Team Prevails in Premises Liability Appeal

    Dorian’s Wrath: How Event Cancellation Insurance Helps Businesses Recoup Losses from Severe Weather

    Lease-Leaseback Battle Continues as First District Court of Appeals Sides with Contractor and School District

    Coverage Denied for Insured's Defective Product

    Contractors Prepare for a Strong 2021 Despite Unpredictability

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case Denied

    Certified Question Asks Hawaii Supreme Court to Determine Coverage for Allegations of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

    Collapse Claim Fails Due To Defectively Designed Roof and Deck

    Wyncrest Commons: Commonly Used Progress Payments in Construction Contracts Do Not Render Them Installment Contracts

    Account for the Imposition of Material Tariffs in your Construction Contract

    GOP, States, Industry Challenge EPA Project Water Impact Rule

    BHA Sponsors 28th Annual Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TX

    Contractors Should be Aware of Homeowner Duties When Invited to Perform Residential Work

    What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

    Louisiana Politicians Struggle on Construction Bills, Hospital Redevelopment

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 05/04/22

    Nevada Lawmakers Had Private Meetings on Construction Defects

    Insurer’s Duty to Indemnify Not Ripe Until Underlying Lawsuit Against Insured Resolved

    Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

    Toll Brothers Surges on May Gain in Deposits for New Homes

    Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

    Coronavirus, Force Majeure, and Delay and Time-Impact Claims

    “Based On”… What Exactly? NJ Appellate Division Examines Phrase and Estops Insurer From Disclaiming Coverage for 20-Month Delay

    California Supreme Court Upholds Precondemnation Procedures

    California Court of Appeal Clarifies Intent of Faulty Workmanship Exclusions

    NTSB Issues 'Urgent' Recommendations After Mass. Pipeline Explosions

    Use Your Instincts when Negotiating a Construction Contract

    Travelers v. Larimer County and the Concept of Covered Cause of Loss

    Singer Ordered to Deposition in Construction Defect Case

    Rising Construction Disputes Require Improved Legal Finance

    Updated: Happenings in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Latest Updates On The Coronavirus Pandemic

    COVID-19 Impacts on Subcontractor Default Insurance and Ripple Effects

    Rhode Island Closes One Bridge and May Have Burned Others with Ensuing Lawsuit
    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

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Business Interruption, COVID-19 Claims Under Pollution Policy Fails

    January 11, 2022 —
    The insurer was unsuccessful in seeking to dismiss business interruption claims due to COVID-19 under a pollution policy. New York Botanical Garden v. Allied World Assur., 2021 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct.15, 2021). The insured was forced to cease operation after executive orders by the governor and mayor were issued in March 2020. The insured also had to reduce its in-person workforce by 100%. The insured's claim for business interruption and contingent business interruption were denied by Allied. The insured sued for a declaratory judgment. Allied moved to dismiss, arguing that the executive orders were issued for prophylactic reasons in an effort to mitigate the spread of the virus. They were not issued solely to address the presence of COVID-19 at any non-insured owned location, but were issued broadly to limit the risk of spreading the COVID-19 virus. The insured responded that its broader pollution liability policy was not a typical civil authority policy that required the physical loss or damage to property. 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

    How Many Homes have Energy-Efficient Appliances?

    October 08, 2014 —
    The National Association of Home Builders’ Eye on Housing analyzed data from the Census Bureau’s 2011 American Housing Survey to “reveal the share of owner-occupied homes that contain various Energy Star related appliances.” Eye on Housing reported that in “new homes, the leading shares of Energy Star rated appliances were refrigerators (70%), washing machines (69%), dishwashers (65%), and central air conditioning (52%).” In “owner-occupied homes,” the survey demonstrated that “refrigerators are the most common Energy Star appliance.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    16 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2021 Top Lawyers!

    September 20, 2021 —
    Congratulations to Wilke Fleury’s featured attorneys who made the Sacramento Magazine’s Top Lawyer List for 2021! The voting for Professional Research Services’ survey to determine the top attorneys in 2021 for Sacramento Magazine was open to all licensed attorneys in Sacramento, Calif. Attorneys were asked whom they would recommend among 56 legal specialties, other than themselves, in the Sacramento area. Each attorney was allowed to recommend up to three colleagues in each given legal specialty. Once the online nominations were complete, each nominee was carefully evaluated on the basis of the survey results, the legitimacy of their license, and their current standing with the State Bar of California. Attorneys who received the highest number of votes in each specialty are reflected in the following list. – Sacramento Magazine Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury LLP

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    June 30, 2011 —

    The Nevada Supreme Court has issued an opinion in the case of Rayburn Lawn & Landscape Designers v. Plaster Development Corporation, reversing the decision of the lower court and remanding the case for a new trial.

    The case originated in a construction defect suit in which Plaster Development Corporation was sued by homeowners. Plaster filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractor, Reyburn. The testimony of Reyburn’s owner was considered to be admission of liability and so the court limited the scope of Reyburn’s closing argument and did not allow the jury to determine the extent of Reyburn’s liability. Reyburn appealed.

    Plaster, in their case, cited California’s Crawford v. Weather Sheild MFG, Inc. The court held the application of these standards, but noted that the “an indemnitor’s duty to defend an indemnitee is limited to those claims directly attributed to the indemnitor’s scope of work and does not include defending against claims arising from the negligence of other subcontractors and the indemnittee’s own negligence.”

    On the matter of law against Reyburn, the court concluded, “Given the conflicting evidence at trial as to whether Reyburn’s work was implicated in the defective retaining walls and sidewalls, and viewing the evidence and inferences in Reyburn’s favor, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have granted relief in favor of Reyburn.” The Nevada Supreme Court conduced that the district court should not have granted Plaster’s motion for judgement.

    Further, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the district court should have apportioned the fees and costs to those claims directly attributed to Reyburn’s scope of work, “if any,” and should not have assigned all attorney costs and court fees to Reyburn.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Couple Claims ADA Renovation Lead to Construction Defects

    December 30, 2013 —
    A couple in Mercer County, West Virginia have claimed that the renovations done to their home not only failed to meet the requested ADA standards, but lead to construction defects, as reported by The West Virginia Record. Ray and Sherry Price are suing Lamberts Construction Company of Bluefield, West Virginia, claiming breach of contract and infliction of emotional distress. The couple hired to company to construct a bathroom addition, a bedroom addition, and a new driveway. In addition to other damages, they are also seeking the cost to repair the renovations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Georgia Court Reaffirms Construction Defect Decision

    August 27, 2013 —
    In 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that construction defects could count as “occurrences” under a general liability policy. John Watkins, writing in Law360, notes that the ruling “has potentially broad implications for Georgia insureds.” He goes on to look at a later Georgia Supreme Court case, in which the court reaffirmed its decision in the 2011 Hathaway case. In the 2013 case, Taylor Morrison Services Inc. v. HDI-Gerlins Ins., the court held that the property damage had to happen to something other than the work performed by the insured, and that a breaches of warranty without fraud claims may be covered. But Watkins notes that this points to “the continuing efforts of insurers to deny coverage for construction defects under CGL policies.” This overruled some of the past decisions of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Watkins noted that the Eleventh Circuit seemed to wonder about the scope of Hathaway, but with Taylor Morrison, “the Georgia Supreme Court provided a clearly stated response.” Looking at the implications, he gives an example in which if a window installer work causes a window to leak and the water intrusion damages a floor, the floor, but not the window would be covered. But he cautions, “the result may turn on the policy language and the particular facts.” In any case, he assures us that “coverage disputes regarding construction defects are sure to continue.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Accounting for Payments on Projects Became Even More Crucial This Year

    September 21, 2020 —
    I discussed several of the statutory changes affecting the construction industry here at Construction Law Musings in the run-up to July 1, 2020. One of those changes, an amendment to Virginia Code Section 43-13, may add another arrow to the collection quiver of subcontractors and suppliers. As part of the previously-linked rundown, I highlighted one of the big additions in 2020, namely the amendment making those pesky clauses that let those up the payment chain from you hold money on “this or any other project” void as against public policy. The other big addition to 43-13 is the change that adds a possible civil cause of action for downstream and unpaid subcontractors and suppliers in the event that funds paid to a general contractor or subcontractor are not first used to pay their downstream contractors and suppliers. Prior to July 1, 2020, this statute provided criminal penalties for such behavior but did not contain the possibility of a civil penalty. The operative language for the change is as follows:
    The use by any such contractor or subcontractor or any officer, director, or employee of such contractor or subcontractor of any moneys paid under the contract before paying all amounts due or to become due for labor performed or material furnished for such building or structure for any other purpose than paying such amounts due on the project shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud. Any breach or violation of this section may give rise to a civil cause of action for a party in contract with the general contractor or subcontractor, as appropriate; however, this right does not affect a contractor’s or subcontractor’s right to withhold payment for failure to properly perform labor or furnish materials on the project.
    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

    Insurer Doomed in Delaware by the Sutton Rule

    September 12, 2023 —
    In Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Thangavel, No. 379, 2022, 2023 Del. LEXIS 227, the Supreme Court of Delaware (Supreme Court) considered whether the Sutton Rule prevented the plaintiff from pursuing subrogation against the defendants. As applied in Delaware, the Sutton Rule explains that landlords and tenants are co-insureds under the landlord’s fire insurance policy unless a tenant’s lease clearly expresses an intent to the contrary. If the Sutton Rule applies, the landlord’s insurer cannot pursue the tenant for the landlord’s damages by way of subrogation. Here, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision that the Sutton Rule applied because the lease did not clearly express an intent to hold the tenants liable for the landlord’s damages. In Thangavel, the plaintiff, Donegal Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer), provided property insurance to Seaford Apartment Ventures, LLC (Landlord) for a residential property in Delaware. Sathiyaselvam Thangavel and Sasikala Muthusamy (Tenants) leased an apartment (the Premises) from Landlord and signed a lease. Insurer alleged that Tenants hit a sprinkler head while flying a drone inside the Premises which caused water to spray from the damaged sprinkler head, resulting in property damage to the Premises. Landlord filed an insurance claim with Insurer, who paid Landlord $77,704.06 to repair the damage. Insurer then sought to recover the repair costs from Tenants via subrogation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Katherine Dempsey, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Dempsey may be contacted at dempseyk@whiteandwilliams.com