BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect 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


    Court Finds That SIR Requirements are Not Incorporated into High Level Excess Policies and That Excess Insurers’ Payment of Defense Costs is Not Conditioned on Actual Liability

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Close Call?”

    Priority of Liability Insurance Coverage and Horizontal and Vertical Exhaustion

    The Future for Tall Buildings Could Be Greener

    Look Out! Texas Building Shedding Marble Panels

    Insurer Sued for Altering Policies after Claim

    Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Recovery Practice, Andrea DeField and Cary D. Steklof, Recognized as Legal Elite

    Lake Charles Tower’s Window Damage Perplexes Engineers

    Georgia Supreme Court Rules Construction Defects Can Constitute an Occurrence in CGL Policies

    Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict

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

    S&P 500 Little Changed on Home Sales Amid Quarterly Rally

    No Coverage for Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

    Montrose III: Vertical Exhaustion Applies in Upper Layers of Excess Coverage

    Construction Picks Up Post-COVID and So Do Claims (and A Construction Lawyer Can Help)

    Three Reasons Late Payments Persist in the Construction Industry

    After Elections, Infrastructure Talk Stirs Again

    Sun, Sand and Stir-Fry? Miami Woos Chinese for Property: Cities

    Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects

    When Cyber Crooks Steal Payments, Think Insurance Makes Up The Loss? Think Again.

    Design-Assist, an Ambiguous Term Causing Conflict in the Construction Industry[1]

    Kadeejah Kelly Named to The National Black Lawyers’ “Top 40 Under 40” List

    Liability Coverage For Construction Claims May Turn On Narrow Factual Distinctions

    Winning Attorney Fees in Litigation as a California Construction Contractor or Subcontractor

    Property Damage to Insured's Own Work is Not Covered

    Indiana Federal Court Holds No Coverage for $50M Default Judgment for Lack of Timely Notice of Class Action

    Construction Defects could become Issue in Governor’s Race

    Transportation Officials Make the Best of a Bumpy 2020

    Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

    New Jersey Law Firm Announces $4 Million Settlement from Construction Site Accident

    Need to Cover Yourself for “Crisis” Changes on a Job Site? Try These Tips (guest post)

    Fraud Claims and Breach Of Warranty Claims Against Manufacturer

    Construction Law: Unexpected, Fascinating, Bizarre

    “Pay When Paid” Provisions May Not Be Dead, at Least Not Yet

    Fifth Circuit Asks Texas Supreme Court to Clarify Construction Defect Decision

    The Unwavering Un-waivable Implied Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability in Arizona

    California Precludes Surety from Asserting Pay-When-Paid Provision as Defense to Payment Bond Claim

    As Some States Use the Clean Water Act to Delay Energy Projects, EPA Issues New CWA 401 Guidance

    A Survey of Trends and Perspectives in Construction Defect Decisions

    Bert Hummel Appointed to Chief Justice’s Commission on Professionalism

    Rio Olympic Infrastructure Costs of $2.3 Billion Are Set to Rise

    U.S. Firm Helps Thais to Pump Water From Cave to Save Boys

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

    Forget Backyard Pools, Build a Swimming Pond Instead

    Colorado House Bill 20-1290 – Restriction on the Use of Failure to Cooperate Defense in First-Party Claims

    Labor Intensive

    Design Professional Needs a License to be Sued for Professional Negligence

    When is a Residential Subcontractor not Subject to the VCPA? Read to Find Out

    Courts Favor Arbitration in Two Recent Construction Dispute Cases

    A Lot of Cheap Housing Is About to Get Very Expensive
    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

    Case-Shiller Redo Shows Less Severe U.S. Home-Price Slump

    September 03, 2014 —
    The collapse in U.S. home prices that stoked the worst recession since the Great Depression wasn’t quite as severe as initially estimated, according to data from S&P/Case-Shiller. Property values nationally fell 26 percent from the February 2007 peak to the December 2011 trough, not 34 percent as previously reported, revised data showed last week. The index will now be issued monthly rather than quarterly. The change is the result of CoreLogic Inc. (CLGX)’s $6 million purchase of the S&P/Case-Shiller index from technology company Fiserv Inc. in March 2013. Case-Shiller has spent more than a year retrofitting its model with CoreLogic’s bigger, higher-quality data set, leading to a change in how the index looks. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lorraine Woellert, Bloomberg
    Ms. Woellert may be contacted at lwoellert@bloomberg.net

    Vertical vs. Horizontal Exhaustion – California Supreme Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Policyholders

    May 11, 2020 —
    For years, when faced with damage or injury spanning several policy periods, excess general liability insurers have argued that all potentially applicable underlying policies must be exhausted before the excess drops down to provide coverage (“horizontal exhaustion”). Insureds, on the other hand, insist that they are entitled to immediately access an excess policy for any given policy year, if that year’s underlying policy has exhausted (“vertical exhaustion”). Vertical exhaustion not only enables insureds to directly tap into the excess insurance for which they paid substantial premiums, but also enables the insured to moderate risk given that different lower level policies might (1) be needed for other claims, (2) have larger self-insured retentions, or (3) have other less favorable coverage provisions. Allowing an insured to proceed via vertical exhaustion would also eliminate the heavy administrative and logistical burden that could result from having to pursue and exhaust all underlying coverage on multi-year claims. In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court has come down in favor of policyholders and vertical exhaustion. The Montrose case involved contamination that allegedly occurred between 1947 and 1982 and different liability insurance towers (comprised of primary and excess layers) for each year. The insured, Montrose, maintained a tower of insurance coverage, year by year, and faced claims asserting damage that spanned several decades. Montrose sought coverage from excess insurers under a vertical exhaustion approach. Not surprisingly, Montrose’s excess insurers insisted that horizontal exclusion was required and that Montrose was required to exhausted all other policies with lower attachment points in every single involved policy period. The California Supreme Court ruled in Montrose’s favor, holding that the insured may insist upon full coverage from an excess insurer once the layer directly below it has exhausted. The Court reasoned that the burden of spreading the loss among insurers is one that is appropriately borne by insurers, not insureds. Reprinted courtesy of Alan H. Packer, Newmeyer Dillion and James S. Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Packer may be contacted at alan.packer@ndlf.com Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Motions to Dismiss, Limitations of Liability, and More

    January 23, 2023 —
    Remember BAE Sys. Ordnance Sys. V. Fluor Fed. Sols? I examined that case on two occasions previously here at Construction Law Musings. Previously the discussions were about the mix (or lack thereof) between fraud and contract and about how careful contract drafting is key. In the most recent opinion in this ongoing litigation from March of 2022, the Court examined various motions to dismiss the Complaint and Counterclaim in the matter. As a reminder, the basic facts are as follows. The US Army Joint Munitions Command (“Army”) contracted with BAE Systems OrdnanceSystems, Inc. (“BAE”) to operate and maintain the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“RFAAP”)under a basic ordering agreement (“BOA”). Under BOA Task Order 002, BAE contracted to replace the legacy NC facility at the RFAAP with a newer one (the “NC Project”). Initially, BAE subcontracted the NC Project to Lauren Engineers & Constructors (“Lauren”), but later terminated Lauren. Despite terminating Lauren, BAE’s timeline to complete the NC Project remained unchanged and BAE was required to use Lauren’s design for the NC Project. BAE gave interested bidders access to the Lauren design and other related documents and required the selected subcontractor to perform in accordance with the 85% complete Lauren design, that the Lauren design could be relied on for accuracy, and the selected subcontractor only had to complete the unfinished parts. Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) submitted a request for information (“RFI”) asking BAE about the standards referenced in the SOW. Fluor was unable to determine the completeness of the Lauren design but relied on BAE’s assertion that the design was 85% complete. BAE rejected Fluor’s initial bid as being too high given what BAE had already paid Lauren for its design and told Fluor to lower its bid because the design was close to complete. Fluor lowered its price and submitted another bid proposal that outlined a firm-fixed-price design/build that forecasted 32 months to complete the NC Project. BAE awarded Fluor an Undefinitized Contract Action (“UCA”) in the amount of $9 million dollars, later increased to $32 million. Under the UCA, Fluor began procuring materials and physical construction before a formal subcontract was agreed upon. On December 17, 2015, BAE and Fluor agreed to a fixed-price design and build subcontract (the “Subcontract”) in which Fluor agreed to design, construct, and partially commission the NC Project for $245,690,422.00, which included money spent already in the UCA. When this litigation began, Fluor was scheduled to complete its work by December 2020, 2.5 years beyond the originally agreed-upon completion date. 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

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Eliminates Loss from Hurricane

    September 06, 2021 —
    The court found the insured was not covered for losses caused by Hurricane Laura due to the implementation of the policy's anti-concurrent causation clause. Aegis Sec. Ins. Co. v. Lejeune, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106804 (W. D. La. June 7, 2021). At the time of the hurricane, the insureds' home was covered by a manufactured home insurance policy issued by Aegis. The policy excluded coverage for damage "caused by, contributed to or aggravated by" flooding. The policy's anti-concurrent causation clause read, "We do not pay for loss to the types of property covered under this policy caused by any of the following. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss." The policy's exceptions followed. After the storm, the insureds submitted their claim. Aegis filed suit for declaratory judgment. Aegis relied upon reports that the manufactured home and barn owned by the insureds were damaged by winds, then displaced and destroyed by storm surge associated with the hurricane. The home first sustained damage from the storm's high winds before it was displaced from its concrete piers by a 12 to 16 foot storm surge. 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

    Texas Supreme Court Holds Stipulated Extrinsic Evidence May Be Considered in Determining Duty to Defend

    May 10, 2022 —
    Responding to certified questions from the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court held that in limited circumstances, extrinsic evidence may be considered in determining the duty to defend. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp., 2022 Tex. LEXIS 148 (Tex. Feb. 11, 2022). The two insurers each provided CGL coverage to the insured, 5D Drilling & Pump Service, Inc., at different times. BIitco provided two consecutive one-year CGL policies covering October 2013 to October 2015. Monroe's CGL policy covered 5D from October 2015 to October 2016. 5D was sued by David Jones for breach of contract and negligence, seeking damage allegedly resulting from 5D's drilling operations on Jones's property. Jones contracted with 5D in the summer of 2014 to drill a 3600-foot irrigation well on his farmland. The complaint did not detail when 5D's purportedly negligent acts occurred or even when 5D began or stopped the work. 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

    Construction of New U.S. Homes Declines on Plunge in South

    July 23, 2014 —
    Housing starts unexpectedly declined in June to a nine-month low, led by a record plunge in the South that shows the construction industry must still overcome hurdles before it can contribute more strongly to U.S. economic growth. Work began on 893,000 homes at an annualized rate, down 9.3 percent from a 985,000 pace in May that was weaker than previously estimated, according to figures from the Commerce Department issued today in Washington. Other reports showed manufacturing was gaining steam this month and fewer Americans filed claims for jobless benefits last week as consumer sentiment hovered near this year’s high. A shortage of buildable lots and experienced construction workers, higher prices and mortgage rates that have climbed from record lows mean residential real estate will struggle to help the world’s largest economy. The figures, along with a decline in building permits, corroborate Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen’s view that progress in the housing market has been “disappointing.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Victoria Stilwell, Bloomberg
    Ms. Stilwell may be contacted at vstilwell1@bloomberg.net

    Flint Water Crisis Prompts Call for More Federal Oversight

    August 28, 2018 —
    WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal watchdog is calling on the Environmental Protection Agency to strengthen its oversight of state drinking water systems nationally and respond more quickly to public health emergencies such as the lead-in-the water crisis in Flint, Michigan . In a 74-page report released Thursday, the EPA's inspector general report pointed to "oversight lapses" at the federal, state and local levels in the response to Flint's contaminated drinking water. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Should I Pull the Pin? Contractor and Subcontractor Termination for Cause

    January 26, 2017 —
    Any owner or general contractor who has a few projects under his or her belt has likely had this thought: “My contractor (or subcontractor) is not performing the way I expected; should I replace him?” The other side of the termination coin is: “This project is not going the way I expected; should I get out?” While there may be an emotional high that immediately comes from terminating a contractor or subcontractor (or leaving a project, in mid-stream), there are many factors to be weighed, before making that decision. Project Delay. Replacing a contractor or subcontractor that has already begun performance always results in delays to the project. Assessing the work in place, interviewing replacement contractors, and negotiating the terms of the new relationship can easily consume weeks, if not months of project time. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McNamara, Porter Law Group
    Mr. McNamara may be contacted at pmcnamara@porterlaw.com