BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineers
    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 Defects and Warranties in Maryland

    Building Group Has Successful 2012, Looks to 2013

    The Future Looks Bright for Construction in 2015

    Insurance Law Alert: California Appeals Court Allows Joinder of Employee Adjuster to Bad Faith Lawsuit Against Homeowners Insurer

    Fifth Circuit Certifies Eight-Corners Duty to Defend Issue to Texas Supreme Court

    After Breaching Its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Pay Market Rates for Defense Counsel

    Florida Enacts Property Insurance Overhaul for Benefit of Policyholders

    Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

    The Construction Lawyer as Problem Solver

    Connecticut Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade

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

    ASCE Statement on Biden Administration Permitting Action Plan

    Wall Street Journal Analyzes the Housing Market Direction

    Busting Major Alternative-Lending Myths

    Ambiguity in Insurance Policy will be Interpreted in Favor of Insurance Coverage

    Nevada Assembly Passes Construction Defect Bill

    Do Not Lose Your Mechanics Lien Right Through a Subordination Agreement

    It’s Time to Start Planning for Implementation of OSHA’s Silica Rule

    Building Permits Up in USA Is a Good Sign

    Vermont Supreme Court Finds COVID-19 May Damage Property

    FEMA, Congress Eye Pre-Disaster Funding, Projects

    New Orleans Is Auctioning Off Vacant Lots Online

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

    Contract Provisions That Help Manage Risk on Long-Term Projects

    Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolute Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage For Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

    Port Authority Revises Plans for $10B Midtown NYC Bus Terminal Replacement

    Avoid L&I Violations by Following Appropriate Safety Procedures

    Insurer's Quote on Coverage for Theft by Hacker Creates Issue of Fact

    Personal Guarantor Cannot Escape a Personal Guarantee By…

    Los Angeles Delays ‘Mansion Tax’ Spending Amid Legal Fight

    Millennium’s Englander Buys $71.3 Million Manhattan Co-Op

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    Selected Environmental Actions Posted on the Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulator Actions

    Collapse of Underground Storage Cave Not Covered

    No Coverage Based Upon Your Prior Work Exclusion

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

    Insurance Coverage for COVID-19? Two N.J. Courts Allow Litigation to Proceed

    New Jersey Judge Found Mortgage Lender Liable When Borrower Couldn’t Pay

    Is an Initial Decision Maker, Project Neutral, or Dispute Resolution Board Right for You?

    Crime Lab Beset by Ventilation Issues

    Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm

    Rhode Island Affirms The Principle That Sureties Must be Provided Notice of Default Before They Can be Held Liable for Principal’s Default

    Preparing the Next Generation of Skilled Construction Workers: AGC Workforce Development Plan

    Burden to Prove Exception to Exclusion Falls on Insured

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (06/29/22)

    Bad Welds Doom Art Installation at Central Park

    Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees on Attorney’s Fees

    David Uchida Joins Kahana Feld’s Los Angeles Office as Partner

    Federal Judge Rips Shady Procurement Practices at DRPA

    Revisiting Termination For Convenience Clauses In Uncertain And Ever-Changing Economic Times
    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

    Water Damage Sub-Limit Includes Tear-Out Costs

    June 06, 2022 —
    The Florida Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that the homeowner policy's sub-limit for water damage included tear-out costs. Sec. First Ins. Co. v. Vazquez, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 1205 (Fla. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2022). A discharge of water from the cast iron pipes caused damage to the home. The water escaped as a result of the failed cast iron pipes due to wear and tear, deterioration, and corrosion. The insurer acknowledged coverage for the water damage and paid $10,000 under the Limited Water Damage Endorsement (LWD Endorsement). The provision recited that "'[t]he limit of liability for all damage to covered property provided by this endorsement is $10,000 per loss." The insureds' suit argued they were entitled to additional benefits for the cost to tear out and replace a part of the concrete slab - an action necessary to reach the corroded pipes. The parties stipulated that the cost of the tear-out would be $40,000. The parties agreed that the LWD Endorsement provided coverage of both water damage and tear-out costs. They also agreed that the cost to repair and/or replace the corroded pipes was not covered. They disagreed, however, over the proper interpretation of the limitation of liability provision in the LWD Endorsement. The insured argued that the $10,000 limit applied to both water damage and tear-out costs. The insureds argued that the $10,00 limit applied only to water damage to covered 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

    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

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Utah for Damage Caused By Faulty Workmanship

    April 03, 2013 —
    The federal district court predicted that the Utah Supreme Court would find that damage to property other than the insured's work product is unexpected and arises from an occurrence. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. AMSCO Windows, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15999 (D. Utah Feb. 5, 2013). The insured, AMSCO Windows, installed windows in new homes constructed in Nevada. A number of homeowners asserted claims against the contractors who built their homes, alleging numerous construction defects, including the windows, and that the defects caused property damage to their homes. The contractors, in turn, asserted claims against AMSCO. The insurer, Cincinnati Insurance Company, filed for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify AMSCO. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    COVID-19 Pandemic Preference Amendments to Bankruptcy Code Benefiting Vendors, Customers, Commercial Landlords and Tenants

    May 03, 2021 —
    Over the last three months, Congress has passed major pieces of legislation primarily in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA), which was signed into law on December 27, 2020. In addition to funding the federal government and a second round of pandemic relief, the CAA contains several amendments to the Bankruptcy Code. One of the amendments provides preference protection to commercial landlords and suppliers who receive overdue payments from their tenants or customers under agreements made on or after March 13, 2020 to postpone the payment of rent or supplier charges. The preference amendments encourage these creditors to afford their customers and tenants payment deferment arrangements without the risk that the companies will clawback the payments as preferences if they later file for bankruptcy protection. The amendments should facilitate workouts of distribution and leasing agreements to help distressed businesses recover and repay arrearages as COVID-19 related governmental restrictions are lifted this year. Reprinted courtesy of Andrew Arthur, White and Williams LLP and Steven Ostrow, White and Williams LLP Mr. Ostrow may be contacted at ostrows@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Arthur may be contacted at arthura@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    April 20, 2017 —
    Earlier, we reported on a California Court of Appeals decision – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc. – which held for the first time that a second-place bidder on a public works contract could sue a winning bidder who failed to pay its workers prevailing wages, under the business tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Fast forward nearly two years, several amicus briefs, and “one doghouse”* later and the California Supreme Court has . . . reversed. The Roy Allan Slurry Seal Case To catch you up, or rather, refresh your recollection . . . Between 2009 and 2012, American Asphalt South, Inc. was awarded 23 public works contracts totaling more than $14.6 million throughout Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. Two of the losing bidders on those projects – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. and Doug Martin Contracting, Inc. – sued American in each of these counties for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage as well as under the Unfair Practices Act (“UPA”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17000 et seq.) and the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Wichita Condo Association Files Construction Defect Lawsuit

    November 20, 2013 —
    Key Construction, the contractor of a downtown Wichita, Kansas mixed-use development has been sued by the condominium association of the development’s condo building. The WaterWalk Place Owners Association claims that the balconies on the building do not drain properly. Additionally, the suit claims that the building has water intrusion problems due to inappropriate or missing sealant at windows, doors, and expansion joints. Key Construction says that they are dealing with the problems and describe the suit as due to “a deadline pushing on” the residents. Wyatt Hock, the attorney for the residents, says that he hopes for a settlement. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Alabama Supreme Court States Faulty Workmanship can be an Occurrence

    July 16, 2014 —
    Carl A. Salisbury of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP in his Lexology article, stated that “it is now official and final: Alabama is no longer one of the outlier jurisdictions on the issue of coverage for faulty workmanship.” In the case Owners v. Jim Carr Homebuilders, in September 2013 the Alabama Supreme Court had “sided with insurers in holding that construction defects can never be accidental and, therefore, can never be covered by Commercial General Liability insurance.” However, in March “the Court withdrew that decision and reversed course,” holding “that faulty workmanship can, in fact, constitute a covered ‘occurrence,’ which CGL policies define as ‘an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to the same generally harmful conditions.’” “This is obviously good news for construction contractors that do work in the state of Alabama,” Salisbury stated. “It is also good news for policyholders in general as it continues the strong trend among state high courts that have been finding in favor of coverage in this important area of insurance law.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 Not Just for Individual Homeowners Anymore?

    March 22, 2017 —
    On March 9, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals announced its decision in Broomfield Senior Living Owner, LLC v. R.G. Brinkmann Company, No. 16CA0101, 2017 COA 31 (Colo. App. Mar. 9, 2017). As a matter of first impression, the Court evaluated whether a senior living facility constitutes “residential property” protected by the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 ("HPA") provision of the Construction Defect Reform Act (CDARA). In 2007, Plaintiff Broomfield entered into a contract with Defendant Brinkmann for construction of a senior assisted and independent living facility. The contract contained warranty provisions related to the quality of construction and cautioned that Plaintiff’s failure to provide Defendant with prompt notice of any defects would result in waiver of any claim for breach. The contract also limited Defendant Brinkmann’s liability by identifying three separate accrual provisions that would determine the time period in which Plaintiff could bring a claim. The project was completed in 2009. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Maggie Stewart, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Ms. Stewart may be contacted at stewart@hhmrlaw.com