BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut reconstruction 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


    Named Insured’s Liability Found Irrelevant to Additional Insured’s Coverage Under a Landlords and Lessors Additional Insured Endorsement

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Preclude Coverage

    Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner

    Google’s Biggest Moonshot Is Its Search for a Carbon-Free Future

    One More Thing Moving From California to Texas: Wildfire Risk

    August Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Appreciate at Faster Pace

    Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove

    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Trigger and Allocation

    The Latest News on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

    Can’t Get a Written Change Order? Document, Document, Document

    North Carolina Federal Court Holds “Hazardous Materials” Exclusion Does Not Bar Duty to Defend Under CGL Policy for Bodily Injury Claims Arising Out of Direct Exposure to PFAs

    Quick Note: Staying, Not Dismissing, Arbitrable Disputes Under Federal Arbitration Act

    Insurer Incorrectly Relies Upon "Your Work" Exclusion to Deny Coverage

    Personal Injury Claims – The Basics

    Fannie-Freddie Propose Liquidity Rules for Mortgage Insurers

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    Super Lawyers Selects Haight Lawyers for Its 2024 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Insurer Springs a Leak in Its Pursuit of Subrogation

    Be Sure to Dot All of the “I’s” and Cross the “T’s” in Virginia

    Judge Halts Sale of Brazilian Plywood

    California Supreme Court Rights the “Occurrence” Ship: Unintended Harm Resulting from Intentional Conduct Triggers Coverage Under Liability Insurance Policy

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms Eight-Year Limit on Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Japan Quake Triggers Landslides, Knocks Power Plant Offline

    Hawaii State Senate Requires CGL Carriers to Submit Premium Information To State Legislature

    Owner’s Slander of Title Claim Against Contractor Recording Four Separate Mechanics Liens Fails Under the Anti-SLAPP Statute

    Court Affirms Summary Adjudication of Bad Faith Claim Where Expert Opinions Raised a Genuine Dispute

    Claims Made Insurance Policies

    Construction Defects Survey Results Show that Warranty Laws Should be Strengthened for Homeowners & Condominium Associations

    Florida District Court Finds That “Unrelated” Design Errors Sufficient to Trigger “Related Claims” Provision in Architects & Engineers Policy

    Massachusetts Court Holds Statute of Repose Bars Certain Asbestos-Related Construction Claims

    New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal in the Nation

    Workers on Big California Bridge Tackle Oil Wells, Seismic Issues

    Allegations that Carrier Failed to Adequately Investigate Survive Demurrer

    DOD Contractors Receive Reprieve on Implementation of Chinese Telecommunications Ban

    Nine Haight Attorneys Selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2021

    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Components of an Effective Provision

    The Roads to Justice: Building New Bridges

    Road Project to Improve Access to Peru's Machu Picchu Site

    One More Statutory Tweak of Interest to VA Construction Pros

    New Safety Requirements added for Keystone Pipeline

    The General Assembly Adds Some Clarity to Contracts and Unlicensed Contractors

    Oracle Sues Procore, Claims Theft of Trade Secrets for ERP Integration

    National Lobbying Firm Opens Colorado Office, Strengthening Construction Defect Efforts

    Is Arbitration Okay Under the Miller Act? It Is if You Don’t Object

    Don’t Overlook Leading Edge Hazards

    Lien Law Change in Idaho

    Construction Is Holding Back the Economy

    What are the Potential Damages when a House is a Lemon?
    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

    Henkels & McCoy Pays $1M in Federal Overtime-Pay Case

    July 19, 2021 —
    In a consent judgment in a federal labor case, major specialty contractor Henkels & McCoy Inc. has paid about $1.1 million in back pay and damages for allegedly not paying required overtime wages to 362 current and former workers in five states, the U.S. Dept. of Labor says. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    U.K. Construction Growth Unexpectedly Accelerated in January

    February 05, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- U.K. construction growth unexpectedly accelerated last month as housing strengthened and civil engineering bounced back from a contraction. Markit Economics said its Purchasing Managers’ Index rose to 59.1 from 57.6 in December. A reading above 50 indicates expansion. Economists forecast the gauge would fall to 57, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Beardsworth, Bloomberg
    Mr. Beardsworth may be contacted at tbeardsworth@bloomberg.net

    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

    June 15, 2011 —

    The Hill reports that HR 2055, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs (VA) and Related Agencies bill, has passed with only five votes in opposition. The bill cuts the budget for military construction spending by $2.6 billion due to anticipated base closures.

    The bill includes $186 million for family housing construction by the Army, $100 million for family housing construction by the Navy and Marines, and $84 million for family construction by the Air Force, with an additional $50 million allocated for the DOD outside the military branches. By the act, these funds will remain available until September 30, 2016.

    Read the full story…

    Read HR 2055

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

    Environmental Roundup – May 2019

    July 09, 2019 —
    Federal Courts of Appeal Dam Claims Collapse On May 7, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided the case of Navelski, et al. v. International Paper Company. After a major storm, a dam constructed by International Paper to serve the operations of its local paper mill, was breached, releasing millions of gallons of water into a nearby creek resulting in the flooding of many homes located downstream from the creek. IP was sued by the homeowners in a class action, alleging negligence and strict liability for conducting an abnormally dangerous activity. The trial court dismissed the strict liability claim, and the jury found IP was not negligent in the operation of the dam. On appeal, the court upheld the jury verdict, agreeing that the verdict was supported by the evidence heard by the jury. The appeals court also agreed that the strict liability claim was properly dismissed as a matter of law because the operation of this dam was not an abnormally dangerous activity under Florida law. The plaintiffs had also argued that the jury should not have been advised that the home county, Escambia County, has applied for a FEMA grant which apparently made the case that some of the downstream homes were naturally prone to flooding. A redacted version of the application was allowed to be shown to the jury, but the appeals court held that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the court ruling was prejudicial. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage

    July 30, 2019 —
    In McMillin Homes Construction v. Natl. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (No. D074219, filed 6/5/19) a California appeals court held that a “care, custody or control” exclusion did not bar coverage for defense of a general contractor as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s policy, because the exclusion requires exclusive control, but the facts and allegations posed a possibility of shared control with the subcontractor. McMillin was the general contractor on a housing project and was added as an additional insured to the roofing subcontractor’s policy pursuant to the construction subcontract. The homeowners sued, including allegations of water intrusion from roof defects. McMillin tendered to the roofing subcontractor’s insurer, which denied a defense based on the CGL exclusion for damage to property within McMillin’s care, custody or control. In the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, McMillin argued that the exclusion required complete or exclusive care, custody or control by the insured claiming coverage, which was not the case for McMillin. The insurer argued that the exclusion said nothing about complete or exclusive care, custody or control. Further, the intent to exclude coverage for damage to any and all property in McMillin’s care, custody or control, to whatever degree, was demonstrated by the fact that the additional insured endorsement in question was not an ISO CG2010 form, but a CG2009 form, which expressly adds a care, custody or control exclusion to the additional insured coverage not found in the CG2010 form. The argument was that the CG2009 form evidences an intent to conclusively eliminate coverage for property in the additional insured’s care, custody or control. In addition, the insurer argued that this result was also reinforced by its inclusion of an ISO CG2139 endorsement in the roofer’s policy, which eliminated that part of the “insured contract” language of the CGL form, defining an “insured contract” as “[t]hat part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business . . . under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to a third person or organization.” The insurer’s argument was that by having eliminated coverage for contractual indemnity or hold harmless agreements, it had “closed the loop” of eliminating additional insured coverage for construction defect claims. 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

    Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned

    July 16, 2014 —
    The construction of the new eastern span of San Francisco’s bay bridge has been criticized for the $6.5 billion cost, welding crack violations, and alleged cover ups by Caltrans. The Sacramento Bee reported that the company Shanghai Zhenhua Port Machinery Co. Ltd. (ZPMC) “had never built a bridge.” In fact, ZPMC “was a manufacturer of giant cranes for container ports.” How then did ZPMC manage to obtain the contract? The Sacramento Bee stated that the company “had established a reputation as fast and cost-effective, offering savings of about $250 million compared to the competing bidder.” The project was already “years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget by political squabbles and construction delays” and there were some fears that the “old bridge might not survive a major quake.” Caltrans was told by an outside expert that ZPMC was a “high risk,” however, the company received a “contingent pass.” Sacramento Bee reported that an audit showed “ZPMC didn’t have enough qualified welders or inspectors…and routinely welded in the rain, a basic error that often causes defects.” Regardless, Caltrans signed off on the project. “In August 2007, Caltrans auditors approved ZPMC outright, although the firm still lacked adequate quality control, even for ‘fracture critical’ materials,” the Sacramento Bee reported. During the California Senate committee hearing in January, Doug Coe, a senior Caltrans engineer, said “’The race for time’ created overwhelming pressure to keep moving as planned….But there’s no excuse for building something defective like that because we are in a race for time.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    January 27, 2020 —
    In a recent decision, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reiterated that the duty to defend broadly requires a liability insurer to defend an entire lawsuit against its insured, even where only some of the allegations are potentially covered. The court further held that the insured has no obligation to apportion defense costs among multiple implicated policies. The decision, Selective Way Insurance Company v. Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company, et al., can be found here. The coverage litigation arose out of a construction defect case against a general contractor. The general contractor tendered the action to its insurer, Nationwide, which, in turn, filed a declaratory judgment action against the various insurers of construction project subcontractors that had named the general contractor as an additional insured. Ultimately, the court granted a summary judgment motion declaring that all of the subcontractors’ insurers had a duty to defend the general contractor “because the allegations in the underlying lawsuit raised claims that potentially arose from the [s]ubcontractors’ work at the [construction site].” All of the subcontractors’ insurers settled with Nationwide except for one, Selective Way; and the parties proceeded to a jury trial on various issues. The jury found for Nationwide on all issues. Selective Way appealed. Selective Way argued on appeal that even if some of the allegations were covered under its policy, it had no obligation to defend the general contractor because its insureds, the subcontractors, could not have been responsible for all of the losses given the nature of their work. Further, Selective Way contended that if it was responsible for defending the general contractor, it was not responsible for the entire defense, and the general contractor was responsible for apportioning the costs among the various subcontractors. The panel disagreed on both points. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fire Fears After Grenfell Disaster Set Back Wood Building in UK

    May 29, 2023 —
    This article is part of the Bloomberg Green series Timber Town, which looks at the global rise of timber as a low-carbon building material. To get fire department approval for their six-story London office project made of strong engineered wood known as mass timber, Theo Michell and Richard Walker had to build a full-scale section of it in the UK, ship it to Poland and attempt to set it on fire. The mockup was set alight “with enough material that replicates the fire load that you get from furniture and carpets and desks, and all the rest of it, and you see how that structure performs,” says Michell. “It was cool,” adds Walker. “It looked amazing.” Their building, called Paradise, passed the fire test and is under construction, though not without a significant drag on their budget and time. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Olivia Rudgard, Bloomberg