BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut 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


    Bad Faith Claim for Investigation Fails

    Design Firm Settles over Construction Defect Claim

    Microwave Transmission of Space-Based Solar Power: The Focus of New Attention

    Measure of Damages for a Chattel Including Loss of Use

    Renters Who Bought Cannot Sue for Construction Defects

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

    Indemnitor Owes Indemnity Even Where Indemnitee is Actively Negligent, California Court Holds

    Landmark Contractor Licensing Case Limits Disgorgement Remedy in California

    Viva La France! 2024 Summer Olympics Construction Features Sustainable Design, Including, Simply Not Building at All

    Construction Spending Highest Since April 2009

    Existence of “Duty” in Negligence Action is Question of Law

    Navigating the New Landscape: How AB 12 and SB 567 Impact Landlords and Tenants in California

    Washington Supreme Court Interprets Ensuing Loss Exception in All-Risk Property Insurance Policy

    Repair of Fractured Girders Complete at Shuttered Salesforce Transit Center

    Building Recovery Comes to Las Vegas, Provides Relief

    Weyerhaeuser Leaving Home Building Business

    Colorado Supreme Court Grants the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes

    State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

    Chinese Drywall Manufacturer Claims Product Was Not for American Market

    Vermont Supreme Court Reverses, Finding No Coverage for Collapse

    Save A Legal Fee? Sometimes You Better Talk With Your Construction Attorney

    Lockton Expands Construction and Design Team

    Paris ‘Locks of Love’ Overload Bridges, Threatening Structures

    Legislative Changes that Impact Construction 2017

    Florida Supreme Court: Notice of Right to Repair is a CGL “Suit,” SDV Amicus Brief Supports Decision

    Home Improvement in U.S. Slowing or Still Intact -- Which Is It?

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

    Crews Tested By Rocky Ground, Utility Challenges

    7 Ways Technology is Changing Construction (guest post)

    Can Your Employee File a Personal Injury Claim if They’re Injured at Work?

    Home Prices Expected to Increase All Over the U.S.

    District Court of Missouri Limits Whining About the Scope of Waiver of Subrogation Clauses in Wine Storage Agreements

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2020 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Creating a Custom Home Feature in the Great Outdoors

    The Indemnification Limitation in Section 725.06 does not apply to Utility Horizontal-Type Projects

    Congratulations to Partner John O’Meara for Being Named as One of America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators for Three Consecutive Years!

    Roni Most, Esq., Reappointed as a City of Houston Associate Judge

    Lewis Brisbois Appellate Team Scores Major Victory in Bad Faith Insurance Action

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Clarifies Standard for Imposing Spoliation Sanctions

    Eleventh Circuit Vacates District Court Decision Finding No Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Third-Party Defendant

    Fatal Crane Collapse in Seattle Prompts Questions About Disassembly Procedures

    Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

    Toronto Skyscraper With $1.2 Billion of Debt Has Been Put in Receivership

    Differing Site Conditions: What to Expect from the Court When You Encounter the Unexpected

    Flushing Away Liability: What the Aqua Engineering Case Means for Contractors and Subcontractors

    San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim

    Construction Costs Absorb Two Big Hits This Quarter

    Work without Permits may lead to Problems Later

    Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93
    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

    25 Years of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar

    May 03, 2018 —
    For a quarter of a century, West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar has been a professional development staple of the construction defect industry. It’s the place where experts, attorneys, mediators, insurance agents, and other industry leaders have gathered to discuss current happenings, take continuing education credits, network with other industry members, and to connect with others. Celebrating its silver anniversary, this year’s seminar continues to be the construction defect community’s must-go-to event. On May 16th-18th, the seminar will return to the Disneyland Hotel. This issue of Construction Defect Journal will provide you with information about what’s happening in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar and to commemorate the past. We hope to see you at this year’s West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar. Enjoy! Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case Triggered by Complaint's Allegations

    August 20, 2014 —
    The subcontractor's insurer could not escape contributing to defense costs of its insured when coverage was possible based upon the underlying complaint's allegations. Seneca Ins. Co. v. James River Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97156 (D. Ore. July 17, 2014). The underlying action alleged construction defects in a 60-unit complex located in Seaside, Oregon. S.D. Deacon Corp. was the general contractor and contracted with the owners association to reconstruct portions of the building, including the curtain wall. Deacon subcontracted with Superwall Design, LLP for work on the curtain wall renovation. At some point not specified in the underlying complaint, the Association notified Deacon of construction defects in the curtain wall renovation. Deacon investigated and concluded that the alleged property damage was the result of inadequate usage of materials, violations of state and local building codes, and violations of relevant industry standards relating to the work performed by Superwall. Deacon contended that the problems were caused by Superwall's faulty workmanship. 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

    CISA Clarifies – Construction is Part of Critical Infrastructure Activities

    April 20, 2020 —
    After ongoing confusion by many over whether construction should be considered part of the “essential business,” during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued an updated Coronavirus Guidance for America on March 28, 2020 to clarify construction’s critical role in supporting essential infrastructure. CISA’s initial advisory list referenced construction in regard to some areas such as energy and wastewater treatment, but it was unclear as to the whole of the construction industry. CISA’s update clarified that construction activities are included in its list of essential critical infrastructure workers. This new federal guidance should remove the ambiguity that led to varying responses by state and local officials halting some construction. The guidance clarifies that construction and related activities – including the manufacture and supply/delivery of supplies and equipment, permitting, safety, and inspections of projects – are covered as part of the critical infrastructure and economic activities. The ongoing challenge will be for construction activities to proceed in a way that protects workers and the general public from the spread of coronavirus. However, contractors are always resourceful and have been implementing safety measures effectively on projects with an unwavering commitment to safety and are ready to meet this challenge. In addition to following the guidance from the CDC, we recommend that contractors implement a comprehensive safety program for their employees as well as for all parties that come onto the jobsite. It is critical that contractors have clear a clear plan for communications with their teams to ensure compliance with the CDC recommendations. This should include what has recently become standard protocol or social distancing, not hosting large group meetings and conducting meetings online or via conference call, maintaining a six-foot distance between people, discouraging hand-shaking or other contact, not sharing tools, and sanitizing reusable PPE. Contractors also should also be sure to place safety posters about “How to Protect Yourself” where they can be readily seen and encourage staying home when sick, cough and sneeze etiquette, and hand hygiene at the entrance of a jobsite. We also recommend heightened site security including interviewing anyone coming to the jobsite. Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees and Ernest Isola, Gordon & Rees Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@grsm.com Mr. Isola may be contacted at eisola@grsm.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Flow-Down Clauses Can Drown Your Project

    August 26, 2015 —
    Flow-Down or pass-through clauses obligate downstream contractors to certain provisions contained in the up up-stream contractor contracts, such as the contract between the general contractor and the owner. These clauses are contained in every major form subcontract and they can expand the scope of your potential liability. This blog will look at typical language of a flow-down clause, what it means and how you can deal with them. Typical Flow-Down Clause A simple flow down clause might provide:
    “The Subcontractor agrees to be bound to the Contractor by the terms of the prime contract and to assume to the Contractor all the obligations and responsibilities that the Contractor by those documents assumes to the Owner, except to the extent that the provisions contained therein are by the terms or by law applicable only to the Contractor.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Federal Court Reiterates Broad Duty to Defend in Additional Insured Cases

    April 22, 2024 —
    In the recent case of Travelers Indem. Co. of Am. v. Accredited Sur. & Cas. Co., No. 21-CV-7189 (FB) (JRC), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44634 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2024), the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York had occasion to consider an additional insured tender on behalf of a prime contractor, Archstone, to a subcontractor, Topline, who was named as a direct defendant in a New York labor law case. Even though Topline’s carrier put forth evidence that Topline was not negligent, the court held, under New York’s broad duty to defend, that Topline’s carrier owed a duty to defend the prime contractor. Initially, the court was satisfied that a purchase order, signed only by Topline and not Archstone, was binding on Topline. That purchase order specified that Topline agreed to name Archstone as an additional insured. With respect to the duty to defend, the court found that it was enough that the underlying plaintiff alleged that all defendants, including Topline, were negligent in permitting a ladder that plaintiff was on to remain in a defective condition and in failing to foresee the existence of a hazard from the condition of the subject ladder. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases

    August 19, 2015 —
    In Babcock & Wilcox Company, et al. v. America Nuclear Insurers, et al., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that where a liability insurer has agreed to provide a defense to its insured in an underlying tort action subject to a reservation of rights but refuses to consent to a settlement in that action, the insured may nevertheless accept the settlement over the insurer’s objection where the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and non-collusive” from the perspective of a reasonably prudent person in the insured’s position in light of the totality of the circumstances and is covered. Babcock & Wilcox Company v. America Nuclear Insurers, No. 2 WAP 2014, 2015 WL 4430352 (Pa. Jul. 21, 2015). This decision fills an important gap in Pennsylvania precedent addressing the rules applicable when an insurer refuses to consent to an insured’s settlement of a lawsuit. In Babcock, the underlying plaintiffs sued Babcock & Wilcox Company and Atlantic Richfield Company (“the Insureds”) alleging that the Insured’s nuclear facilities caused bodily injury and property damage. The Insureds’ liability insurers agreed to defend the Insureds subject to a reservation of rights. The insurers later refused to consent to an offer to settle the underlying action for a total of $80 million because they believed the Insureds were likely to succeed on the merits. Nevertheless, in 2009, the Insureds accepted that offer and settled the underlying action for $80 million, notwithstanding the insurer’s refusal. The Insureds then sought reimbursement of the $80 million settlement from their insurers, who rejected that request on the ground that the Insureds had breached the consent-to-settlement/cooperation provisions of the implicated policies. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sean Mahoney, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com

    Steps to Defending against Construction Defect Lawsuits

    July 21, 2011 —

    Writing in Claims Journal, Bryan Rendzio notes that the decline in construction has not been matched by a decline in construction defect lawsuits over condominiums. He reviews the ways in which lawyers representing developers can help protect their clients. He identifies four important considerations in defending developers from claims of construction defects.

    He advocates a careful review of the contract. “Under a breach of contract claim, the insured’s duties to the party who brought the claim against the insured flow from the contract. Commonly, construction contracts limit the scope of recoverable damages, such as by waiving consequential damages.’

    The next step, according to Rendzio is to check of a settlement agreement is already in place, noting that these are “a familiar occurrence in the construction industry, regardless of any lawsuits having been filed.”

    He considers the statute of repose “the single-most decisive weapon an insured possesses in its arsenal during a condo defect lawsuit.” He notes that no lawsuits can be brought for construction defects after the end specified by the statute of repose, and if a lawsuit is brought beforehand, no additional parties can be named once the statute has taken effect.

    Finally, he warns adjusters to be suspicious when a condo association requests contractual indemnification. He notes that the pitfall in this is that developers and the subsequent condominium association often have similar names, given the theoretical example of a condo project built by “Fake Lakes LLC” and later run by the “Fake Lakes Condominium Association.” Writing in regards to Florida law, he notes that condominium associations do not have successor interest in contracts developers made with contractors.

    Read the full story…

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

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

    June 12, 2023 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner Katie Keller and Associate Steven Hollis obtained summary judgment on behalf of a major homeowners’ insurer in a breach of contract action in the Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Osceola County, Florida. The underlying claim involved a water loss in the kitchen of the Plaintiff’s property allegedly resulting in substantial damage to the home necessitating renovations throughout the residence. The claim was reported seventeen days after the reported date of loss by Plaintiff’s counsel. The Plaintiff had retained counsel and two vendors before giving notice to the insurer. In addition, the insurer’s field adjuster was not provided the opportunity to inspect the plumbing materials which had been allegedly damaged. Specifically, the bottom panel of the sink kitchen cabinet box had been removed. The insurer retained an engineer, who concluded that the removal of the damaged property hindered the ability of the engineer to determine their conditions prior to removal or whether exposure from waste arm leakage occurred. It was later learned that the damaged plumbing fixtures and the bottom of the cabinets had been thrown out by the contractors, which all happened before the claim was reported to the insurer. The insured also failed to provide a signed, sworn proof of loss within sixty days after the loss. Reprinted courtesy of Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman and Steven A. Hollis, Traub Lieberman Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com Mr. Hollis may be contacted at shollis@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of