BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnesses
    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


    ASCE Statement On House Passage Of The Precip Act

    California Governor Signs SB 496 Amending California’s Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Colorado Passes Compromise Bill on Construction Defects

    Safe Commercial Asbestos-Removal Practices

    Georgia Super Lawyers Recognized Two Lawyers from Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Group

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Addresses Recurring Asbestos Coverage Issues

    Avoid Drowning in Data: Keep Afloat with ESI in Construction Litigation

    Bill to Include Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Introduced in New Jersey

    Pennsylvania “occurrence”

    University of Tennessee Commits to $1.9B Capital Plan

    How Palm Beach Balances Mansion Politics Against Climate Change

    Comparative Breach of Contract – The New Benefit of the Bargain in Construction?

    In One of the First Civil Jury Trials to Proceed Live in Los Angeles Superior Court During Covid, Aneta Freeman Successfully Prevailed on Behalf of our Client and Obtained a Directed Verdict and Non-Suit

    Construction Defect Reform Bill Passes Colorado Senate

    Loss Caused by Theft, Continuous Water Discharge Not Covered

    West Coast Casualty Promises Exciting Line Up at the Nineteenth Annual Conference

    Lewis Brisbois Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for Insurance Law, Mass Tort/Class Actions Defense, Labor & Employment Litigation, and Environmental Law in 2024 Best Law Firms®

    Housing Agency Claims It Is Not a Party in Construction Defect Case

    Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.

    U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Maritime Charters and the Specter of a New Permitting Regime

    Coverage Denied for Ensuing Loss After Foundation Damage

    Proposed Bill Provides a New Federal Tax Credit for the Conversion of Office Buildings

    Vermont Supreme Court Reverses, Finding No Coverage for Collapse

    Nerves of Steel Needed as Firms Face Volatile Prices, Broken Contracts and Price-Gouging

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Win Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Favor of Insurer

    APROPLAN and GenieBelt Merge, Creating “LetsBuild” – the Build Phase End-to-End Digital Platform

    Hunton’s Alice Weeks Selected to the Miami Dade Bar’s Circle of Excellence for Insurance Litigation

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (09/06/23) – Nonprofit Helping Marginalized Groups, Life Sciences Taking over Office Space, and Housing Affordability Hits New Low

    Construction Activity on the Upswing

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    90 and 150: Two Numbers You Must Know

    Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project

    Brown Act Modifications in Response to Coronavirus Outbreak

    Water Damage: Construction’s Often Unnoticed Threat

    Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Little Changed in January

    Perez Broke Records … But Should He Have Settled Earlier?

    No Conflict in Successive Representation of a Closely-Held Company and Its Insiders Where Insiders Already Possess Company’s Confidential Information

    Happy New Year from CDJ

    E-Commerce Logistics Test Limits of Tilt-Up Construction

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    Unwrapped Pipes Lead to Flooding and Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Navigating the Hurdles of Florida Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Massachusetts Federal Court Holds No Coverage for Mold and Water Damage Claim

    Two Injured in Walkway Collapse of Detroit Apartment Complex

    SE 2050 Is In Quixotic Pursuit of Eliminating Embodied Carbon in Building Structures

    Housing Inflation Begins to Rise

    California Senator Proposes Bill to Require Contractors to Report Construction Defect Cases

    Understanding Insurance Disputes in Construction Defect Litigation: A Review of Acuity v. Kinsale

    U.S. Stocks Fluctuate Near Record After Housing Data

    Eleventh Circuit Holds that EPA Superfund Remedial Actions are Usually Entitled to the FTCA “Discretionary Function” Exemption
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Project Team Upgrades Va. General Assembly

    September 29, 2021 —
    From pre-pandemic labor and material shortages to COVID precautions and social unrest concerns, the design and construction team on the Commonwealth of Virginia’s new General Assembly Building (GAB) project in Richmond has navigated the breadth of recent industry challenges. Set on Capitol Square and neighboring the Virginia State Capitol, the site of the new 414,000-sq-ft GAB is as high profile of a location as you can find in the state. Reprinted courtesy of Bruce Buckley, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Legal Disputes Soar as Poor Information Management Impacts the AEC Industry

    July 03, 2022 —
    Managers in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) are facing more disruptive disputes in 2022 compared to last year according to the latest independent research from regulatory compliance company Ideagen. The survey of business leaders from AEC firms in the US and UK revealed that 78% of respondents experienced some kind of dispute in the business, compared to 63% in 2021, with information accessibility and visibility, caused largely by high staff turnover, the main root causes. With the challenges that the industry continues to face following COVID and increasing costs of materials, this is an added but unnecessary challenge facing the industry. Stuart Rowe, Vice President of Collaboration Strategy at Ideagen, whose customers include the US Navy, Gensler, Arup and Ramboll, said: "The working world has continued to change in the last 12 months, which is reflected in the AEC industry's evolving priorities. The COVID-19 pandemic led to a huge shift to remote working which saw an increased need for effective collaboration tools, however, this year is appears that hybrid working is the new normal in the industry. "Four-fifths of the people we spoke to said email is still king for project correspondence. This is a huge concern as most project scope changes reside in email inboxes. Failing to properly manage all information and records also prevents a Golden Thread, or a Single Source of Truth, across projects and businesses." Ideagen undertook the independent survey to support developments to their Mail Manager software, used by 2,500 architecture, engineering and construction firms in 16 countries worldwide. It revealed a number of insights into how the industry is managing changing work patterns. Download the full research here. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Follow Up on Continental Western v. Shay Construction

    March 28, 2012 —

    Writing in Construction Law Colorado, Brady Iandiorio revisits the case Continental Western v. Shay Construction. He promises to continue to follow cases dealing with Colorado HB 10-1394.

    Recently the Court ruled on two Motions to Reconsider filed by Defendants Milender White and Shay Construction.

    Procedurally, the Motions to Reconsider were ruled on by the Honorable William J. Martinez, because the day after the motions were filed the action was reassigned to Judge Martinez. In the short analysis of the Motion to Reconsider, the court leaned on Judge Walker D. Miller’s ruling on the summary judgment and his analysis of the (j)(5) and (j)(6) exclusions.

    As a quick refresher regarding the grant of summary judgment, Judge Miller agreed with Continental Western’s argument that the asserted claims were excluded under the “damage to property” exclusion. The policy’s exclusions state: “(j) Damage to Property . . . (5) that particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the ‘property damage’ arises out of those operations; or (6) that particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because ‘your work’ was incorrectly performed on it.” Judge Miller found that both exclusions (j)(5) and (6) applied to both Shay’s allegedly defective work.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio of Higgins, Hopkins, McClain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Iandiorio can be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com.

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

    Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit

    August 24, 2020 —
    In Trilogy Plumbing, Inc. v. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. (No. G057796, filed 5/27/20, ord. pub. 6/18/20), a California appeals court ruled that an insurance bad faith lawsuit alleging a variety of claim handling misconduct in defending the insured was not subject to an insurer’s special Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion to strike because, while the alleged acts were generally connected to litigation, they did not include any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a judicial body and, therefore, did not constitute protected activity under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. In Trilogy Plumbing, the policyholder was sued in 33 different construction defect lawsuits, some of which Navigators defended, and others which were denied or had the defense withdrawn. The Navigators’ policies were subject to a $5,000 deductible, and Trilogy alleged that Navigators breached the contracts by “demanding deductible reimbursement amounts greater than the policies’ $5,000 stated deductible, and by seeking reimbursement of ordinary defense fees and expenses as if they were subject to deductible reimbursement,” “claiming a right to seek reimbursement from Trilogy for defense fees and expenses Navigators paid for the benefit of third-party additional insureds,” “providing conflicted defense counsel who took instructions only from Navigators without disclosing conflicts of interest,” “failing to reasonably settle cases and by withdrawing [the] defense as a strategic means of trying to force Trilogy to fund its own settlements,” “misrepresenting its deductible provisions,” “refusing to account for deductible amounts it charges and collects,” and others. 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

    Repairs Commencing on Defect-Ridden House from Failed State Supreme Court Case

    October 15, 2014 —
    In the Windmill Harbour area of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, Danielle Smith is repairing her home after “spending almost $25,000 on unsuccessful legal battles and two years to secure a loan,” according to the Beaufort Gazette. The contractor who custom built the home was unlicensed, and “[t]he synthetic stucco used to build the house was faulty, causing water damage throughout that will cost $500,000 and six months to repair.” Back in 2008, Smith’s case reached the state Supreme Court. The court ruled against her, reasoning “that the former owner, who had hired subcontractors to build the house, could not be held liable for the damage because he built it as a private home and had originally intended to never sell it.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    January 06, 2012 —

    In a case the judge attributed to “shoddy masonry work,” the US District Court of Illinois has rendered a decision in AMCO Insurance Company v. Northern Heritage Builders. Northern Heritage built a home in Chicago for Michael McGrath (who joined Northern Heritage as a defendant). According to the decision, “seven months after he moved into the house, McGrath noticed water coming in the house and warped millwork.” This was attributed to porous block, installed by the mason with Northern Heritage’s knowledge.

    McGrath sued National Heritage for both the damage to his house and its contents. The court rejected his claim for the contents. For the damages to his house, he was awarded $601,570.50 in damages. He also sued his homeowner’s insurance carrier for damages not covered in his suit against National Heritage. There he was awarded $1,130,680.16.

    AMCO informed National Heritage that it had neither duty to defend nor duty to indemnify. The judge considered whether AMCO had a duty to defend. Under Illinois law, “damage to a construction project resulting from construction defects is not an ‘accident’ or ‘occurrence’ because it represents the natural and ordinary consequence of faulty construction.” However, it is noted that while if the defects lead only to damage to the project itself, there is no occurrence, “if the building owner asserts damages to other property besides the construction itself, there is an ‘occurrence’ and ‘property damage.’” The judge further noted that were construction defects an occurrence, “shoddy work” would be rewarded by double pay, once by the homeowner and a second time by the insurer. Judge Kendall concluded that as McGrath had alleged damage to the contents of his house, AMCO had a duty to defend National Heritage.

    She then looked at the issue of whether AMCO had a duty to indemnify. Should they pay the $601,570.50? Judge Kendall noted that “the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend.” The key point here was that once McGrath’s insurance carrier covered him for the damage to the contents of his house, “AMCO’s duty to defend ended.” Once McGrath “only sought damages for the natural consequences of faulty workmanship” there was no occurrence, hence nothing for AMCO to cover.

    Judge Kendall granted a summary dismissal of AMCO’s claim that they had no duty to defend while upholding their claim that they had no duty to indemnify.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    December 02, 2015 —
    The Florida Court of Appeals determined that there was no coverage for damage to the insured's home caused by the installation of Chinese drywall. Peek v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co., 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 14147 (Fla. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2015). Chinese drywall was installed in the Peek's new home. After moving in, the Peeks reported to American Integrity a sulfur odor caused by the Chinese drywall. The odor caused the Peeks to vacate their home. The Peeks also claimed corrosion and deterioration of copper coils in the air conditioning system were caused by the Chinese drywall. American Integrity denied coverage based upon policy exclusions for latent defects, corrosion, pollutants, and faulty, inadequate or defective constrution materials. The Peeks sued American Integrity. 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

    First Look at Long List of AEC Firms Receiving PPP Loans

    July 20, 2020 —
    Thousands of construction and design firm from all parts of the U.S. appear on lists of companies that have received federal Paycheck Protection Program forgivable loans, according to federal documents just made public. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record and Scott Blair, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Mr. Blair may be contacted at blairs@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of