BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut engineering 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


    Michigan Claims Engineers’ Errors Prolonged Corrosion

    Hawaii Federal District Court Again Rejects Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    Preserving your Rights to Secure Payment on Construction Projects (with Examples)

    Colorado General Assembly Sets Forth Prerequisites for an Insurance Company to Use Failure to Cooperate as a Defense to a Claim for First Party Insurance Benefits

    Delaware Supreme Court Won’t Halt Building

    California Department of Corrections Gets Hit With the Prison Bid Protest Blues

    Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

    Court of Federal Claims: Upstream Hurricane Harvey Case Will Proceed to Trial

    Southern California Super Lawyers Recognizes Four Snell & Wilmer Attorneys As Rising Stars

    In Personal Injury Actions, Prejudgment Interest on Costs Not Recoverable

    Naples, Florida, Is Getting So Expensive That City Workers Can’t Afford It

    Indictments Issued in Las Vegas HOA Scam

    Florida Condos Bet on Americans Making 50% Down Payments

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Nevada for Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    Difficulty in Defending Rental Supplier’s Claim Under Credit Application

    BHA has a Nice Swing Donates to CDCCF

    Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion

    Workers Compensation Insurance: Dangers of the Audit Process

    Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Matching of Materials Decided by Appraisers

    Changes to Va. Code Section 43-13: Another Arrow in a Subcontractor’s Quiver

    General Contractor’s Excess Insurer Denied Equitable Contribution From Subcontractor’s Excess Insurer

    Illinois Appellate Court Addresses Professional Services Exclusion in Homeowners Policy

    New Evidence Code Requires Attorney to Obtain Written Acknowledgement that the Confidential Nature of Mediation has been Disclosed to the Client

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

    Tesla Finishes First Solar Roofs—Including Elon's House

    A License to Sue: Appellate Court Upholds Condition of Statute that a Contracting Party Must Hold a Valid Contractor’s License to Pursue Action for Recovery of Payment for Contracting Services

    Buffett’s $11 Million Beach House Is Still on the Market

    Is Your Home Improvement Contract Putting You At Risk?

    Construction Contract Language and Insurance Coverage Must Be Consistent

    Jason Feld Awarded Volunteer of the Year by Claims & Litigation Management Alliance

    Buyer Beware: Insurance Agents May Have No Duty to Sell Construction Contractors an Insurance Policy Covering Likely Claims

    Quick Note: Do Your Homework When it Comes to Selecting Your Arbitrator

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (06/28/23) – Combating Homelessness, U.S. Public Transportation Costs and the Future of Commercial Real Estate

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces Jason Moberly Caruso As Its Newest Partner

    North Carolina Appeals Court Threatens Long-Term Express Warranties

    The ARC and The Covenants

    Ex-Corps Worker Pleads Guilty to Bribery on Afghan Contract

    The Cross-Party Exclusion: The Hazards of Additional Named Insured Provisions

    Ohio School Board and Contractor Meet to Discuss Alleged Defects

    Homeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other Things

    New York: The "Loss Transfer" Opportunity to Recover Otherwise Non-Recoverable First-Party Benefits

    Prefabrication Contract Considerations

    Packard Condominiums Settled with Kosene & Kosene Residential

    Texas Supreme Court: Breach of Contract Not Required to Prevail on Statutory Bad Faith Claim

    Chapman Glucksman Press Release

    Preservationists Want to Save Penn Station. Yes, That Penn Station.

    Under Colorado House Bill 17-1279, HOA Boards Now Must Get Members’ Informed Consent Before Bringing A Construction Defect Action

    What Contractors Can Do to Address Rising Material Costs

    New World Cup Stadiums Failed at their First Trial

    CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Related Remedies – 2014 Update
    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

    Ninth Circuit Resolves Federal-State Court Split Regarding Whether 'Latent' Defects Discovered After Duration of Warranty Period are Actionable under California's Lemon Law Statute

    December 17, 2015 —
    In Daniel v. Ford Motor Company (filed 12/02/15), the Ninth Circuit resolved a federal and state court split on the issue of whether consumers can sustain a breach of implied warranty claim under California’s Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (aka the “lemon law” statute) for “latent” defects discovered after the warranty period has expired. Answering this question in the affirmative, the Ninth Circuit followed the holding in the California state appellate decision of Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co. 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 285 (2009), which definitively determined there is nothing in California’s lemon law that requires a consumer to discover a latent defect during the duration of the warranty. The underlying class action lawsuit was brought in federal district court by purchasers of Ford Focus vehicles. The plaintiffs alleged Ford was aware of, but failed to disclose, a rear suspension defect in the Focus that resulted in premature tire wear which can cause decreased vehicle control, catastrophic tire failure and drifting on wet or snowy roads. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims including violations of California’s Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. Ford successfully moved for summary judgment on all claims prompting an appeal. Reprinted courtesy of Laura C. Williams, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Admissibility of Expert Opinions in Insurance Bad Faith Trials

    November 04, 2019 —
    In 2010, Hansen Construction was sued for construction defects and was defended by three separate insurance carriers pursuant to various primary CGL insurance policies.[i] One of Hansen’s primary carriers, Maxum Indemnity Company, issued two primary policies, one from 2006-2007 and one from 2007-2008. Everest National Insurance Company issued a single excess liability policy for the 2007-2008 policy year, and which was to drop down and provide additional coverage should the 2007-2008 Maxum policy become exhausted. In November 2010, Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primarily policy but agreed to defend under the 2006-2007 primarily policy. When Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primary policy, Everest National Insurance denied under its excess liability policy. In 2016, pursuant to a settlement agreement between Hansen Construction and Maxum, Maxum retroactively reallocated funds it owed to Hansen Construction from the 2006-2007 Maxum primary policy to the 2007-2008 Maxum primary policy, which became exhausted by the payment. Thereafter, Hansen Construction demanded coverage from Everest National, which continued to deny the claim. Hansen Construction then sued Everest National for, among other things, bad faith breach of contract. In the bad faith action, both parties retained experts to testify at trial regarding insurance industry standards of care and whether Everest National’s conduct in handling Hansen Construction’s claim was reasonable. Both parties sought to strike the other’s expert testimony as improper and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    The Simple Reason Millennials Aren't Moving Out Of Their Parents' Homes: They're Crushed By Debt

    February 26, 2015 —
    Millennials are not budging from their parents' basements, even though the job market is on the mend. One really big reason? Student loans. Last year, the rate of 25- to 34-year-olds living at home rose to 17.7 percent among men and 11.7 percent for women, Census data showed last week. That is a record high for both genders. Rising co-residence rates are correlated more closely with student debt than with factors like economic conditions and the housing market, according to a staff report in November from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The regional bank wrote about the trend today in its blog called "Liberty Street Economics." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nina Glinski, Bloomberg

    New Hampshire Applies Crete/Sutton Doctrine to Bar Subrogation Against College Dormitory Residents

    May 17, 2021 —
    Pursuant to the Sutton Doctrine, first announced in Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478 (Okla. Ct. App. 1975), some jurisdictions consider a tenant a coinsured of its landlord absent an express agreement to the contrary. In Ro v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2019-0620, 2021 N.H. LEXIS 34 (Mar. 10, 2021), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the Sutton Doctrine, adopted by New Hampshire in Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Crete, 846 A.2d 521 (N.H. 2004), extends to resident students in a college dormitory. Thus, absent specific language to the contrary, a student is an implied coinsured under the fire insurance policy issued for his or her dormitory. In 2016, two students at Dartmouth College, Daniel Ro and Sebastian Lim, set up a charcoal grill on a platform outside of a fourth-floor window in the Morton Hall dormitory. The grill started a fire on the platform that ultimately spread to the roof of the dormitory. During fire suppression efforts, all four floors of the dormitory sustained significant water damage. Following the loss, the building’s insurer, Factory Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer), paid $4,544,313.55 to the Trustees of Dartmouth College for the damages. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
    Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com

    HP Unveils Cheaper, 3-D Printing System to Spur Sales

    November 05, 2014 —
    Hewlett-Packard Co. (HPQ) unveiled a new 3-D-capable computer and speedier 3-D printer technology as it prepares to spin off its personal-computer and printer businesses into a stand-alone company. The company today introduced Sprout, an $1,899 computer that lets people scan and manipulate 2-D and 3-D objects. It will be available early next month online and in some U.S. stores. Hewlett-Packard also said new 3-D printer technology will make the process cheaper and faster than competitors. The Palo Alto, California-based company is betting that 3-D technology will help revitalize sales and spur growth in the printer industry. More than 2.3 million 3-D printers will ship in 2018, up from about 108000 this year, according to researcher Gartner Inc. Earlier this month, Hewlett-Packard said it would split into two companies by late 2015, with one focused on corporate hardware services and the other -- dubbed HP Inc. -- on PCs and printers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jack Clark, Bloomberg
    Mr. Clark may be contacted at jclark185@bloomberg.net

    Fargo Shows Record Home Building

    October 01, 2013 —
    Home builders in the area of Fargo, North Dakota are describing growth in the area as “enormous.” Darrick Guthmiller, the president of the Home Builders Association of Fargo-Moorhead noted that in sixteen years of building homes, this was the best he’d seen. The Home Builders Association expects that next year might even be better. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Connecticut Appellate Court Decides That Construction Contractor Was Not Obligated To Continue Accelerated Schedule to Mitigate Its Damages Following Late Delivery of Materials by Supplier

    April 11, 2022 —
    In United Concrete Prods. v. NJR Constr., LLC, 207 Conn. App. 551, 263 A.3d 823 (2021), the Connecticut Appellate Court has issued a decision that should be of interest to the Connecticut construction industry and the construction bar. The lawsuit arose out of the late delivery of materials on a construction project, which is a frequent problem on construction projects. In United Concrete Products, the defendant general contractor, NJR Construction, LLC (“NJR”) was retained by the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation (“DOT”) to replace a bridge over the Hockanum River (“Project”). Id. at 555-58 (2021). The Prime Contract provided that NJR with an eight-week time-frame to perform the work, at which time the road would be closed to traffic. Id. The Prime Contract also provided for a bonus of $3,000 for each day the road was opened to traffic prior to the eight week deadline of August 8, 2016, and for liquidated damages of $3,000 for each day the road remained closed beyond the deadline. Id. NJR subsequently entered into a purchase order (“Subcontract”) with the plaintiff, United Concrete Products, Inc. (“United”), whereby United agreed to provide certain concrete components for the Project, including ten pre-stressed concrete beams. Id. The Subcontract required that United deliver the concrete beams by June 7, 2016, but, NJR did not actually schedule the delivery until June 29, 2016. Id. Nevertheless, even with that schedule NJR could have reopened the road by July 19, 2016, which would have allowed it to receive the full $60,000 incentive bonus. However, United did not deliver the concrete beams until July 26, 2016, which caused NJR to lose the incentive bonus, be assessed liquidated damages by the DOT, and to incur additional delay damages. Id. After deducting the amount of $179,500 in damages that it incurred due to United’s late delivery of the beams, NJR paid United the balance of $66,074.75. Id. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert M. Barrack, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
    Mr. Barrack may be contacted at rbarrack@grsm.com

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Will Not Address Trigger for DEP Environmental Cleanup Action at This Time

    August 14, 2018 —
    On July 18, 2018, in Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company v. Johnson Matthey, Inc., et al., No. 24 MAP 2017 (Pa. July 18, 2018), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court quashed the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association’s (PMA) appeal seeking review of a ruling denying its motion for summary judgment for an order that coverage for the cleanup of a toxic waste site is limited to the policy in effect when property damage was first discovered. In short, the court found the lower court’s ruling only narrowed the dispute between the parties and is, therefore, interlocutory and not appealable at this time. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gregory Capps, White & Williams LLP
    Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com