BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating 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 Defect Bill Introduced in California

    New ANSI Requirements for Fireplace Screens

    First Quarter Gains in Housing Affordability

    Design Professional Liens: A Blueprint

    Big Data Meets Big Green: Data Centers and Carbon Removal Compete for Zero-Emission Energy

    AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages

    Florida Appellate Courts Holds Underwriting Manuals are Discoverable in Breach of Contract Case

    Georgia Supreme Court Says Construction Defects Can Be an “Occurrence”

    #11 CDJ Topic: Cortez Blu Community Association, Inc. v. K. Hovnanian at Cortez Hill, LLC, et al.

    Boots on the Ground- A Great Way to Learn and Help Construction Clients

    "Is the Defective Work Covered by Insurance?"

    New ConsensusDocs 242 Design Professional Change Order Form Helps Facilitate Compensation for Changes in Design Services

    Hawaii Federal District Court Rejects Bad Faith Claim

    Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

    Thank You for 17 Years of Legal Elite in Construction Law

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Insurer Must Defend Oil Company Against Entire Lawsuit

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, Texas

    South Adams County Water and Sanitation District Takes Proactive Step to Treat PFAS, Safeguard Water Supplies

    Waive It Goodbye: Despite Evidence to the Contrary, Delaware Upholds an AIA Waiver of Subrogation Clause

    Are Construction Defect Laws Inhibiting the Development of Attached Ownership Housing in Colorado?

    Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Standard of Repose in Fruit Warehouse Case

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

    Are We Having Fun Yet? Construction In a Post-COVID World (Law Note)

    Florida Insurance Legislation Alert - Part I

    First-Time Buyers Home Sales Stagnates

    Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Irma

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case Denied

    U.K. Construction Resumes Growth Amid Resurgent Housing Activity

    The Ups and Downs of Elevator Maintenance Contractor's Policy Limits

    Court Finds That Limitation on Conditional Use Permit Results in Covered Property Damage Due to Loss of Use

    Insureds Survive Summary Judgment on Coverage for Hurricane Loss

    New Jersey Supreme Court Ruled Condo Association Can’t Reset Clock on Construction Defect Claim

    A New Study: Unexpected Overtime is Predictable and Controllable

    When it Comes to COVID Emergency Regulations, Have a Plan

    2019 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Competition to Design Washington D.C.’s 11th Street Bridge Park

    Ohio Condo Owners Sue Builder, Alleging Construction Defects

    Pollution Exclusion Does Not Apply To Concrete Settling Dust

    Sold Signs Fill Builder Lots as U.S. Confidence Rises: Economy

    Suing a Local Government in Land Use Cases – Part 1 – Substantive Due Process

    Illinois Court Assesses Factual Nature of Term “Reside” in Determining Duty to Defend

    Return-to-Workplace Checklist: Considerations and Emerging Best Practices for Employers

    Giving Insurance Carrier Prompt Notice of Claim to Avoid “Untimely Notice” Defense

    Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Denial of Coverage Unsuccessful

    California Supreme Court Holds Insured Entitled to Coverage Under CGL Policy for Negligent Hiring

    Traub Lieberman Partner Rina Clemens Selected as a 2023 Florida Super Lawyers® Rising Star

    Tech to Help Contractors Avoid Litigation

    Insurance Policy’s “No Voluntary Payment” Clauses Lose Some Bite in Colorado

    Scaffolding Purchase Suggests No New Building for Board of Equalization
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Fairfield's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Allegations of Actual Property Damage Necessary to Invoke Duty to Defend

    January 17, 2013 —

    The Fifth Circuit held that under Texas law, conclusory allegations of property damage in the underlying complaint did not trigger the insurer's duty to defend. PPI Tech. Serv., L.P. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24571 (5th Cir. Nov. 29, 2012).

    Royal Production Company was the lessor and operator of three leases for oil exploration. Royal retained the insured, PPI, as its agent to assist in well-planning and oversee the drilling of wells on the leases.

    A well was drilled on one of the three leased areas, but in resulted in a dry hole. It was later discovered that the well had been drilled on the wrong lease. Royal sued PPI for negligence, claiming that PPI caused the drilling rig to be towed to the wrong location, resulting in a dry hole and "property damage." 

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    NYC Supertall Tower Condo Board Sues Over Alleged Construction, Design 'Defects'

    October 04, 2021 —
    The condominium board at a 1,396-ft-tall residential tower on New York City’s Billionaires’ Row has sued the building’s developers, claiming to have identified more than 1,500 construction and design defects in common areas alone. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defect Bill a Long Shot in Nevada

    June 28, 2013 —
    Construction defect reform may still be on the table in Nevada, according to the Reno Gazette Journal. Assembly member Pat Hickey got a committee hearing for Assembly Bill 504 on Sunday. The bill is backed by the construction industry and opposed by trial lawyers. Hickey told the Assembly Commerce and Labor committee that “this bill is not perfect, I would like for it to do more,” and said that without changes Nevada will “continue to reward litigation over resolution.” AB504 would, among other provisions, provide some protection to subcontractors from the actions of general contractors, though Ira Hansen, an assembly member from Sparks and the owner of a plumbing business, called it a “backhanded slap.” The Gazette noted that similar language pertaining to subcontractors was in AB367, which is sponsored by Democrats. Hickey and Hansen are both Republicans. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Home Construction Thriving in Lubbock

    December 30, 2013 —
    The 2013 numbers for home construction aren’t ready yet, but the January through November numbers for Lubbock, Texas show a 42% increase over the number of construction permits issued for single-family homes in the first 11 months of 2012. The number look even better compared to 2011’s totals, according to KFYO. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Loss Caused by Theft, Continuous Water Discharge Not Covered

    September 17, 2015 —
    The insured's claim for loss based on theft and water leaks was not covered under the property policy. SJP Props. v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97216 (E.D. Mo. July 27, 2015). SJP Properties bought and sold foreclosed properties. On July 13, 2006, it purchased at a foreclosure sale a property in St. Louis. The property was not inspected before or after the purchase, and sat vacant for more than two years. No one checked regularly on the property. The property was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Mount Vernon, effective from March 8, 2006 to March 8, 2009. The policy covered vandalism, but excluded loss caused by theft. An exception for the exclusion provided coverage for "building damage caused by the breaking in or exiting of burglars." The policy also excluded loss or damage caused by fungus, wet rot, dry rot and bacteria or water leaks for a period of 14 days or more. 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

    Buyers Are Flocking to NYC’s Suburbs. Too Bad There Aren’t Many Homes to Sell.

    February 20, 2023 —
    In the midst of the worst US housing slump in a decade, a wave of finance and tech layoffs and drumbeats of a potential recession, open houses in affluent New York suburbs are packed. Offers come in fast — sometimes for hundreds of thousands over asking. A typical scene played out on a cloudy Sunday last month in Scarsdale, a suburb about 20 miles (32 kilometers) north of Manhattan known for its bucolic setting and high-rated schools. At the tail end of an open house, a dozen people were still wandering in and around a 1926 Tudor-style house listed for about $1.93 million. An older couple took video on their iPhone for their offspring too busy to attend, while a younger man walked around with his infant in a chest carrier. The house was in need of some touch-ups. Somebody whispered that the hardwood floors were scratched, another said that the refrigerator looked warped, and a pair of kitchen cabinet doors was missing. It hardly mattered. Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Epstein, Bloomberg and Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Napa Quake Seen Costing Up to $4 Billion as Wineries Shut

    August 27, 2014 —
    The earthquake that struck northern California yesterday will lead to economic losses of as much as $4 billion, fueled by damaged wineries and shuttered businesses that rely on tourists. Insurers will probably cover about $2.1 billion, according to an estimate from Kinetic Analysis Corp., which projected total losses of about twice that sum. Costs borne by the industry may be limited because many homeowners don’t have earthquake coverage, according to the Insurance Information Institute. “The main source of claims could well be commercial claims, those coming from wineries and vineyards and other commercial interests,” Robert Hartwig, the institute’s president, said in an interview today. “It will take a while for the business owners to sort this out.” Mr. Marois may be contacted at mmarois@bloomberg.net; Mr. Tracer may be contacted at ztracer1@bloomberg.net; Mr. Hart may be contacted at dahart@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael B. Marois, Zachary Tracer and Dan Hart, Bloomberg

    Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case

    February 10, 2012 —

    The US District Court of Washington has issued a ruling in the case of Ledcor Industries v. Virginia Surety Company, Inc. Ledcor was the builder of a mixed-use real estate project in Seattle called the Adelaide Project. Ledcor purchased an insurance policy from Virginia Surety covering the project. After the completion of the project, Ledcor received complaints of construction defects from the homeowners, which they forwarded to Virginia Surety.

    Virginia Surety denied coverage on several grounds. Absent any lawsuit, Virginia claimed that there was “not yet any duty to defend or indemnify.” Further, as the policy commenced ten days after work on the project was substantially completed, Virginia cited a provision in the policy that excluded coverage for damage that occurred before the policy began. As problems included water intrusion, Virginia noted an exclusion for fungal damage. Finally, Virginia noted that it was not clear whether damage was due to Ledcor’s own actions.

    The homeowners sued over the construction defects. Ledcor settled these suits before trial. In this, they were defended by, and settlements were paid by American Home, another of Ledcor’s insurers. Ledcor claims that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith by denying coverage and by its failure to investigate the ongoing nature of the work at the project.

    The judge determined that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith when it invoked the fungus exclusion. Virginia noted that fungal damage “‘would have been’ referenced in the list of construction defects,” however, the HOAs claimed only “water stains” and “water damage,” and made no mention of mold or fungus. The court found that Virginia Surety “was not entitled to deny coverage simply because it may have suspected that mold or fungus damage existed.” The court noted that further proceedings would be needed to determine what portion of the settlement Virginia is obligated to pay.

    The court found that there were matters of fact to be determined on the further issues in the case. The judge wrote that although Virginia acted in bad faith in invoking the fungus exclusion, it still had to be determined if they were in breach of contract by failing to defend Ledcor. Ledcor still needs to show that the damages claimed by the HOA were due to work actually covered by Virginia Surety.

    Ledcor made an additional claim that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s laws concerning the insurance industry. Here, the court noted that the improper exclusion for fungus issues “constitutes a per se unfair trade practice.” Six other claims were made under this law. The court found that Virginia Surety did not misrepresent “pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions.” It also issued its denial letter promptly, satisfying the fifth provision. However, Virginia Surety did violate the second provision, in that it failed “to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims.” Two other issues could not be determined.

    Judge Martinez’s decision granted a summary judgment to Ledcor on the issue of bad faith. An additional summary judgment was granted that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act. Judge Martinez did not grant summary judgment on any of the other issues Ledcor raised.

    Read the court’s decision…

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