BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor 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


    London Shard Developer Wins Approval for Tower Nearby

    Supplement to New California Construction Laws for 2019

    Ahlers & Cressman Presents a Brief History of Liens

    CGL, Builders Risk Coverage and Exclusions When Construction Defects Cause Property Damage

    Managing Partner Jeff Dennis Recognized as One of the Most Influential Business People & Opinion Shapers in Orange County

    Alexis Crump Receives 2020 Lawyer Monthly Women in Law Award

    Duty to Defend Broadly Applies to Entire Action; Insured Need Not Apportion Defense Costs, Says Maryland Appeals Court

    Industry Practices Questioned After Girder Fractures at Salesforce Transit Center

    Coverage Under Builder's Risk Policy Properly Excluded for Damage to Existing Structure Only

    Assessments Underway After Hurricane Milton Rips Off Stadium Roof, Snaps Crane Boom in Florida

    The Colorado Supreme Court holds that loans made to a construction company are not subject to the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute

    Sick Leave, Paid Time Off, and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

    Despite Health Concerns, Judge Reaffirms Sentence for Disbarred Las Vegas Attorney

    Insurers' Motion to Determine Lack of Occurrence Fails

    Fannie-Freddie Propose Liquidity Rules for Mortgage Insurers

    Tarriffs, a Pandemic and War: Construction Contracts Must Withstand the Unforeseeable

    The Pandemic of Litigation Sure to Follow the Coronavirus

    Drone Use On Construction Projects

    Bid Bonds: The First Preventative Measure for Your Project

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    Lost Rental Income not a Construction Defect

    California Court of Appeal Affirms Trial Court’s Denial of anti-SLAPP Motion in Dispute Over Construction of Church Facilities

    The Power of Team Bonding: Transforming Workplaces for the Better

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded as Part of "Damages Because of Property Damage"

    Used French Fry Oil Fuels London Offices as Buildings Go Green

    Differences in Types of Damages Matter

    Janus v. AFSCME

    Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules

    Designers “Airpocalyspe” Creations

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers®

    Oregon Codifies Tall Wood Buildings

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

    World-Famous Architects Design $480,000 Gazebos for Your Backyard

    Pa. Contractor Pleads No Contest to Prevailing-Wage Charges, Pays Workers $20.7M

    Serving Notice of Nonpayment Under Miller Act

    Construction Materials Company CEO Sees Upturn in Building, Leading to Jobs

    Newmeyer & Dillion’s Alan Packer Selected to 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers List

    Coverage for Named Windstorm Removed by Insured, Terminating Such Coverage

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

    How Algorithmic Design Improves Collaboration in Building Design

    Building Permits Hit Five-Year High

    Viewpoint: Firms Should Begin to Analyze Lessons Learned in 2020

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces New Partner Bahaar Cadambi

    Homebuyers Aren't Sweating the Fed

    Construction Leads World Trade Center Area Vulnerable to Flooding

    Contractors Board May Discipline Over Workers’ Comp Reporting

    Predicting the Future of Texas’s Grid Is a Texas-Sized Challenge

    New York Revises Retainage Requirements for Private Construction Contracts: Overview of the “5% Retainage Law”

    A Lack of Sophistication With the Construction Contract Can Play Out In an Ugly Dispute

    U.S. Housing Starts Exceed Estimates After a Stronger December
    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

    U.S. Steel Invoking Carnegie’s Legacy in Revival Strategy

    July 23, 2014 —
    In March 2013, Mario Longhi lobbed an unexpected question into a roomful of 150 U.S. Steel Corp. managers: Who here would buy the company’s stock, tomorrow? He gave them three seconds, and “only a few reacted in that time frame positively,” Longhi said. Since that meeting, Longhi has been promoted to chief executive officer, and nine months into his tenure he’s closed one plant permanently, two more are temporarily idled and he’s planning to overhaul another. It’s all part of his plan to transform the 144-year-old company into a lean, modern steel producer. Investors are taking note, with the shares up 53 percent since he took over. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sonja Elmquist, Bloomberg
    Ms. Elmquist may be contacted at selmquist1@bloomberg.net

    Faulty Workmanship may be an Occurrence in Indiana CGL Policies

    April 07, 2011 —

    The question of whether construction defects can be an occurrence in Commercial General Liabilities (CGL) policies continues to find mixed answers. The United States District Court in Indiana denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment in the case of General Casualty Insurance v. Compton Construction Co., Inc. and Mary Ann Zubak stating that faulty workmanship can be an occurrence in CGL policies.

    Judge Theresa L. Springmann cited Sheehan Construction Co., et al. v. Continental Casualty Co., et al. for her decision, ”The Indiana Supreme Court reversed summary judgment, which had been granted in favor of the insurer in Sheehan, holding that faulty workmanship can constitute an ‘accident’ under a CGL policy, which means any damage would have been caused by an ‘occurrence’ triggering the insurance policy’s coverage provisions. The Indiana Supreme Court also held that, under identically-worded policy exclusion terms that are at issue in this case, defective subcontractor work could provide the basis for a claim under a CGL policy.”

    As we reported on April 1st, South Carolina’s legislature is currently working on bill S-431 that would change the wording of CGL policies in their state to include construction defects. Ray Farmer, Southwest region vice president of the American Insurance Association spoke out against the bill. “CGL policies were never meant to cover faulty workmanship by the contractor,” he said. “The bill’s supplementary and erroneous liability provisions will only serve to unnecessarily impact construction costs in South Carolina.”

    Read the Opinion and order...
    Read the court’s ruling...
    Read the American Insurance Association statement...

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

    Part of the Whole: Idaho District Court Holds Economic Loss Rule Bars Tort Claims Related to Water Supply Line that was Part of Home Purchase

    October 03, 2022 —
    In Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill. v. LSP Prods. Grp., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139566, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho (District Court) considered whether the plaintiff’s tort claims against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective toilet water supply line were barred by the economic loss rule. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that, since the supply line was a part of the home when the plaintiff’s insureds purchased it, the plaintiff was barred by the economic loss rule from bringing tort claims against the manufacturer. The District Court granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion, ruling that the supply line was a part of the home, which was the subject of the transaction, at the time it was purchased. Thus, the District Court held that the economic loss rule barred the plaintiff’s tort claims. In 2012, Melissa Norris and Richard Meyers (collectively, the Homeowners) purchased a newly built home in Eagle, Idaho. In 2016, a toilet supply line in one of the bathrooms began leaking, causing water damage to the home as well as to window blinds, an oven and dishwasher. The Homeowners also incurred a loss of rental income. The Homeowners submitted a claim to Safeco Insurance Company (Insurer), their property insurance carrier, who ultimately covered the Homeowners’ losses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    New York Appellate Court Applies Broad Duty to Defend to Property Damage Case

    January 03, 2022 —
    In the recent case of New York Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. Eastman Cooke & Associates, 153 N.Y.S.3d 840, 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dept. 2021), New York’s first department affirmed a duty to defend under New York law. In the underlying action, the plaintiff alleged property damages due to prolonged construction work in a different unit of the subject property. The underlying plaintiff sued the owner of the subject property, which in turn sued Eastman Cooke, the general contractor at the premises. New York Marine denied coverage to Eastman Cooke, asserting that the underlying suit did not seek damages occurring during the New York Marine policy period, and commenced a declaratory judgment action. The trial court held—and the First Department affirmed—that New York Marine has a duty to defend Eastman Cooke. Initially, the court found that the underlying suit alleged property damage as required for coverage, because there were allegations regarding loss of use of the property. The court also found that the underlying suit alleged damages occurring during the New York Marine policy period. Although the underlying complaint alleged that the underlying plaintiffs were reimbursed for damages occurring during the New York Marine policy period by another insurer, the court held that the evidence was that the payments only covered a certain part of the damages sought. Accordingly, because there was a reasonable possibility that some unreimbursed damages may fall within the New York Marine policy period. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

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

    March 02, 2020 —
    New York Partner Karen L. Campbell and Fort Lauderdale Partner Kristen D. Perkins will both speak at the upcoming CLM 2020 Annual Conference taking place March 18 to 20 at the Gaylord Texan Resort outside Dallas, Texas. On March 19 at 2:00 p.m., Ms. Perkins will join a panel discussion titled “Predictive Analytics – You Don’t Need a Crystal Ball to Predict the Future,” exploring how predictive analytics affects litigation management programs, including case budgets, case cycle times, and claims outcomes. The panelists will also look at how machine learning picks up on nuances or anomalies that can affect analytics and give attendees a clearer picture on expected case parameters, and how that information can empower claims professionals during firm selection. Then, on March 20 at 10:40 a.m., Ms. Campbell will join a roundtable discussion titled “How to Calculate Damages and Defend in Serious Injury Cases,” covering the calculation of both economic and non-economic damages, as well as trends and recent verdicts involving punitive damages and assessing the various types of third-party liability. Reprinted courtesy of Karen Campbell, Lewis Brisbois and Kristen Perkins, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Campbell may be contacted at Karen.Campbell@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Perkins may be contacted at Kristen.Perkins@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against Builders

    June 10, 2015 —
    In Belasco v. Wells, 183 Cal. Rptr.3d 840, 234 Cal. App. 4th 409 (2015), the California Court of Appeals for the Second District addressed the question of whether a homeowner, when settling an administrative complaint against a licensed homebuilder, can release future, unknown claims. Despite the presence of a California statute, Cal. Civ. Code § 1542, stating that a general release does not extend to claims that the releasor does not know about, the court held that the homeowner’s express release of future claims was enforceable. Thus, the homeowner’s release - signed as part of a 2006 settlement of the homeowner’s construction defect claims against the defendant, a homebuilder - barred the homeowner’s 2012 claims against the builder based on latent defects in the roof of the home that the homeowner discovered in 2011. Background The plaintiff, David Belasco, a patent attorney, bought a newly-constructed home from the defendant-builder, Gary Wells, in 2004. Wells holds a Class B General Building Contractor license issued by the Contractors State License Board (the Board). In 2006, Belasco filed a complaint against Wells with the Board based on alleged construction defects in the home. As a result of Belasco’s complaint to the Board, the parties engaged in arbitration. At the arbitration, both parties were represented by counsel. Wells offered to settle the dispute for the sum of $25,000 and Belasco accepted Wells’ offer. Reprinted courtesy of Edward A. Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP and William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Giant Gas Pipeline Owner, Contractor in $900M Payment Battle

    January 22, 2024 —
    A Canadian partnership including energy developer TC Energy that is building the $10.6-billion Coastal GasLink pipeline, and a key project contractor, are disputing more than $900 million in project costs in court and in upcoming arbitration. The 670-kilometer line in British Columbia that announced mechanical completion last year is set to carry liquefied natural gas to the LNG Canada export terminal under construction on the province’s Pacific Coast—the country’s first such facility. Reprinted courtesy of David Godkin, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    When to use Arbitration to Resolve Construction Disputes

    February 25, 2014 —
    On the blog Construction Contractor Advisor, Craig Martin answers the question of whether arbitration is always the best choice for resolving construction claims. His answer: “Some claims may benefit from arbitration, but the benefit is not always clear.” Martin brings forth four points to consider. First, AIA Contracts do not “push Arbitration.” Second, the cost of arbitration may be expensive: “You could well spend over $5,000 just to have the arbitrator decide your case—again, not to mention your own attorneys fees.” Third, arbitration doesn’t avoid discovery. And finally, “mediation is always an option, regardless of which way you pursue your claim.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of