BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestration
    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


    Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Secures Summary Judgment Win for National Hotel Chain

    Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes

    Appellate Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Order Compelling Appraisal

    Mexico City Metro Collapse Kills 24 After Neighbors’ Warnings

    Karen Campbell, Kristen Perkins to Speak at CLM 2020 Annual Conference in Dallas

    Checking the Status of your Contractor License During Contract Work is a Necessity: The Expanded “Substantial Compliance” under B&P 7031 is Here

    Aging-in-Place Features Becoming Essential for Many Home Buyers

    Colorado Adopts Twombly-Iqbal “Plausibility” Standard

    Practical Pointers for Change Orders on Commercial Construction Contracts

    A Third of U.S. Homebuyers Are Bidding Sight Unseen

    Former Superintendent Sentenced in Rhode Island Tainted Fill Case

    Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company

    Traub Lieberman Partner Katie Keller and Associate Steven Hollis Obtain Summary Judgment Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Policy Conditions

    New York Court Grants Insured's Motion to Dismiss Construction Defect Case and Awards Fees to Insured

    Client Alert: Naming of Known and Unknown Defendants in Initial Complaints: A Cautionary Tale

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Abandons "Integrated Systems Analysis" for Determining Property Damage

    New Executive Order: Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All

    Banks Loosening U.S. Mortgage Standards: Chart of the Day

    Virginia Tech Has Its Own Construction Boom

    Sixth Circuit Affirms Liability Insurer's Broad Duty to Defend and Binds Insurer to Judgment Against Landlord

    Amazon’s Fatal Warehouse Collapse Is Being Investigated by OSHA

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

    MGM Begins Dismantling of the Las Vegas Harmon Tower

    Signed, Sealed and (Almost) Delivered: EU Council Authorizes Signing of U.S. – EU Bilateral Insurance Agreement

    Homeowner Alleges Pool Construction Is Defective

    OSHA Updates: New Submission Requirements for Injury and Illness Records

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 45 White and Williams Lawyers

    Ten Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    Construction Up in United States

    Protect Your Right To Payment By Following Nedd

    Survey Finds Tough Labor Market Top-of-mind for Busy Georgia Contractors

    Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

    Excessive Corrosion Cause of Ohio State Fair Ride Accident

    Contractor Gets Green Light to Fix Two Fractured Girders at Salesforce Transit Center

    Struggling Astaldi Announces Defaults on Florida Highway Contracts

    Tenth Circuit Finds Appraisal Can Decide Causation of Loss Under Colorado Law

    While Starts Fall, Builder Confidence and Permits are on the Rise

    Understanding Liability Insurer’s Two Duties: To Defend and to Indemnify

    Know What You’ve Built: An Interview with Timo Makkonen of Congrid

    The Texas Supreme Court Limits the Use of the Economic Loss Rule

    The Ever-Growing Thicket Of California Civil Code Section 2782

    Sureties do not Issue Bonds Risk-Free to the Bond-Principal

    Missouri Construction Company Sues Carpenter Union for Threatening Behavior

    Hurricane Handbook: A Policyholder's Guide to Handling Claims during Hurricane Season

    Mortgage Battle Flares as U.K. Homebuying Loses Allure

    Insurance Company’s Reservation of Rights Letter Negates its Interest in the Litigation

    Two Architecturally Prized Buildings May be Demolished

    Construction Defect Leads to Death, Jury Awards $39 Million

    Construction Goes Green in Orange County

    Mitigating Mold Exposure in Manufacturing and Multifamily Buildings
    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. Leveraging 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

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    October 10, 2013 —
    Defining words and phrases in the law can be a tricky proposition. In everyday life one would presume to know what the phrase “intended use” would mean, but when it comes to litigation, oftentimes the definitions become much more nuanced. On March 12, 2013, in the Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., WL 950800 (D. Colo. 2013) case, Senior District Court Judge Wiley Y. Daniel denied Third-Party Defendant Canal Insurance Company’s (“Canal”) motion to dismiss Third-Party Plaintiff Hartford Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Hartford”) third-party complaint. The case arose out of a liability insurance coverage dispute related to an underlying construction defect lawsuit. In the construction defect suit, a plaintiff homeowner’s association brought a suit against a developer and a general contractor (“GC”) among others. While the underlying action was settled, a dispute remained between Bituminous Casualty Corporation, which insured the GC, and Hartford, which insured the developer. Hartford asserted third-party claims against Canal seeking a declaration of Canal’s obligations and contribution in the event Hartford owed any defense or indemnity obligations to the GC. Hartford’s claims are based on the premise that Canal owed a duty to defend and/or indemnify the GC in the underlying action. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
    Brady Iandiorio can be contacted at Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

    Additional Insured Coverage Confirmed

    February 23, 2016 —
    The Texas Court of Appeals found that Exxon Mobil Corporation was an additional insured under the CGL policy for Exxon's service provider. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 12757 (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2015). Exxon contracted with Wyatt Field Service Company to perform "services" as set forth in various work orders from Exxon's affiliates. The contract also required Wyatt to maintain $5 million of commercial general liability insurance. The contract provided that the policies must cover Exxon and its affiliates "as additional insureds in connection with the performance of Services." In 2008, Wyatt was assigned to work on a flexicoker unit at Exxon's refinery. Wyatt was to reinstall dummy nozzles and chains. It completed this service in October 2008. Three years later, one of the dummy nozzles pulled free, and the escaping steam and coke burned three individuals who were working on the unit. After the accident, it was discovered that the safety chain had been installed in the wrong location so that it did not properly secure the dummy nozzle. 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

    Subcontractors Found Liable to Reimburse Insurer Defense Costs in Equitable Subrogation Action

    August 03, 2020 —
    In Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (No. E068353, filed 6/10/20), a California appeals court reversed the denial of an equitable subrogation claim for reimbursement of defense costs from contractually obligated subcontractors to a defending insurer, finding that all of the elements for equitable subrogation were met, and the equities tipped in favor of the insurer. After defending the general contractor, Pulte, in two construction defect actions as an additional insured on a subcontractor’s policy, St. Paul sought reimbursement of defense costs solely on an equitable subrogation theory against six subcontractors that had worked on the underlying construction projects, and whose subcontracts required them to defend Pulte in suits related to their work. After a bench trial, the trial court denied St. Paul’s claim, concluding that St. Paul had not demonstrated that it was fair to shift all of the defense costs to the subcontractors because their failure to defend Pulte had not caused the homeowners to bring the construction defect actions. The appeals court reversed, holding that the trial court misconstrued the law governing equitable subrogation. Because the relevant facts were not in dispute, the appeals court reviewed the case de novo and found that the trial court committed error in its denial of reimbursement for the defense fees. The appeals court found two errors: First, the trial court incorrectly concluded that equitable subrogation requires shifting of the entire loss. Second, the trial court applied a faulty causation analysis – that because the non-defending subcontractors had not caused the homeowners to sue Pulte, thereby necessitating a defense, St. Paul could not meet the elements of equitable subrogation. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    What is an Alternative Dispute Resolution?

    August 26, 2019 —
    Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) is a term that refers to a number of processes that can be used to resolve a conflict, dispute, or claim. ADR processes are alternatives to having a court decide the dispute in trial. ADR processes can be used to resolve any type of dispute including but not limited those related to families, neighborhoods, employment, businesses, housing, personal injury, consumers, and the environment. ADR is usually less formal, less expensive, and less time-consuming than a trial. Most Common Types of Alternative Dispute Resolutions Mediation In mediation, an impartial person called a “mediator” helps the parties try to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the dispute. The mediator does not decide the dispute but helps the parties communicate so they can try to settle the dispute themselves. Mediation leaves control of the outcome with the parties. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Seventh Circuit Confirms Additional Insured's Coverage for Alleged Construction Defects

    August 10, 2017 —
    The Seventh Circuit held that the underlying complaint alleged an occurrence by asserting that the painting subcontractor was negligent in causing damage to the building. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Decorating Serv., Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12516 (7th Cir. July 13, 2017). McHugh Construction, the general contractor for construction of a 24 story condominium building in Chicago, retained National Decorating Service, Inc. as a subcontractor to perform all of the painting work. This meant National Decorating would paint the exterior of the building with a protective coating that was a waterproof sealant. After completion, the building's board of managers sued McHugh, National Decorating, and others for damages resulting from faulty workmanship. The third amended complaint alleged: (1) significant cracking of the exterior concrete walls, interior walls, and ceilings; (2) significant leakage through the exterior concrete walls, balconies, and windows; (3) defects to the common elements of the building; and (4) damage to the interior ceilings, floors, interior painting, drywall, and furniture in the units. 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

    Suing A Payment Bond Surety in Different Venue Than Set Forth in The Subcontract

    August 10, 2021 —
    The venue to file a lawsuit can be an important issue for a variety of reasons, whether for convenience or the prospect of a more favorable outcome. Oftentimes, there is a venue provision in a contract that provides where the exclusive venue for any dispute arising out of the contract must be brought. In a recent case, Southeastern Concrete Constructors, LLC v. Western Surety Company, 2021 WL 2557297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), dealing with a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) project, a subcontractor filed suit against the general contractor’s FDOT payment bond issued under Florida Statute s. 337.18. The subcontractor did not file suit against the general contractor. The subcontractor filed suit in Hillsborough County, Florida. However, the subcontract contained a venue provision requiring disputes under the subcontract to be brought in Levy County, Florida. Based on this venue provision in the subcontract, the trial court granted a motion to transfer the venue of the dispute to Levy County. This, however, was reversed on appeal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    The Washington Supreme Court Rules that a Holder of a Certificate of Insurance Is Entitled to Coverage

    March 09, 2020 —
    The Washington courts have historically found that the purpose of a certificate of insurance is to advise others as to the existence of insurance, but that a certificate is not the equivalent of an insurance policy. However, the Washington State Supreme Court recently held that, under certain circumstances, an insurer may be bound by the representations that its insurance agent makes in a certificate of insurance as to the additional insured (“AI”) status of a third party. Specifically, in T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, the Supreme Court found that where an insurance agent had erroneously indicated in a certificate of insurance that an entity was an AI under a liability policy, that entity would be considered as an AI based upon the agent’s apparent authority, despite boilerplate disclaimer language contained in the certificate. T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, Slip. Op. No. 96500-5, 2019 WL 5076647 (Wash. Oct. 10, 2019). In this case, Selective Insurance Company of America (“Selective”) issued a liability policy to a contractor who had been retained by T-Mobile Northeast (“T-Mobile NE”) to construct a cell tower. The policy conferred AI status to a third party if the insured-contractor had agreed in a written contract to add the third party as an AI to the policy. Under the terms of the subject construction contract, the contractor was required to name T-Mobile NE as an AI under the policy. T-Mobile NE was therefore properly considered as an AI because the contractor was required to provide AI coverage to T-Mobile NE under the terms of their contract. However, over the course of approximately seven years, Selective’s own insurance agent issued a series of certificates of insurance that erroneously identified a different company, “T-Mobile USA”, as an AI under the policy. This was in error because there was no contractual requirement that T-Mobile USA be added as an AI. Nonetheless, the certificates stated that T-Mobile USA was an AI, and they were signed by the agent as Selective’s “authorized representative.” Reprinted courtesy of Sally S. Kim, Gordon & Rees and Kyle J. Silk-Eglit, Gordon & Rees Ms. Kim may be contacted at sallykim@grsm.com Mr. Silk-Eglit may be contacted at ksilkeglit@grsm.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Assembly Passes Expedited Dam Safety for Silicon Valley Act

    June 22, 2020 —
    In an effort to move forward a $576 million Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit Project, the California State Assembly passed AB 3005 on June 8, the Expedited Dam Safety for Silicon Valley Act, facilitating the construction of the project. Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of