BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction forensic 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


    Continuous Injury Trigger Applied to Property Loss

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “That’s Not How I Read It”

    California Supreme Court Finds Vertical Exhaustion Applies to First-Level Excess Policies

    Design Professional Liens: A Blueprint

    Cooperating With Your Insurance Carrier: Is It a Must?

    Construction Defect Bill Introduced in California

    Payment Bond Surety Entitled to Award of Attorneys’ Fees Although Defended by Principal

    U.S. Construction Spending Rose in 2017 by Least in Six Years

    Montana Theater Threatened by Closure due to Building Safety

    A Place to Study Eternity: Building the Giant Magellan Telescope

    Settlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National Union

    Subcontract Should Flow Down Delay Caused by Subcontractors

    Red Wings Owner, Needing Hockey-Arena Neighborhood, Builds One

    Insurer Prohibited from Bringing Separate Contribution Action in Subrogation to Rights of Suspended Insured

    Construction Calamity: Risk Transfer Tips for Contractors After a Catastrophic Loss

    Distressed Home Sales Shrinking

    Wake County Justice Center- a LEED Silver Project done right!

    The Top 10 Changes to the AIA A201: What You Need to Know

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    Revised Cause Identified for London's Wobbling Millennium Bridge After Two Decades

    Florida Decides Against Adopting Daubert

    A New Perspective on Mapping Construction Sites with the Crane Camera System

    #12 CDJ Topic: Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015)

    Fifth Circuit Asks Texas Supreme Court to Clarify Construction Defect Decision

    Texas Mechanic’s Lien Law Update: New Law Brings a Little Relief for Subcontractors and a Lot of Relief for Design Professionals

    Miller Act CLAIMS: Finding Protections and Preserving Your Rights

    Big League Dreams a Nightmare for Town

    Wisconsin Federal Court Addresses Scope Of Appraisal Provision In Rental Dwelling Policy

    Recent Amendments and Caselaw Affecting the Construction Industry in Texas

    Parking Garage Collapse May Be Due to Construction Defect

    No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

    Conditional Judgment On Replacement Costs Awarded

    A Deep Dive Into an Undervalued Urban Marvel

    Los Angeles Could Be Devastated by the Next Big Earthquake

    Wage Theft Investigations and Citations in the Construction Industry

    Modular Homes Test Energy Efficiency Standards

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    Texas contractual liability exclusion

    Cracked Girders Trigger Scrutiny of Salesforce Transit Center's Entire Structure

    A Court-Side Seat: SCOTUS Clarifies Alien Tort Statute and WOTUS Is Revisited

    Congratulations to Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, Peter Brown, Karen Baytosh, and Associate Matthew Cox for Their Inclusion in 2022 Best Lawyers!

    Employee Handbooks—Your First Line of Defense

    Indemnity Clauses—What do they mean, and what should you be looking for?

    Failure to Timely File Suit in Federal Court for Flood Loss is Fatal

    Do Hurricane-Prone Coastal States Need to Update their Building Codes?

    Maryland Court Affirms Condo Association’s Right to Sue for Construction Defects

    What You Should Know About Liquidated Damages and Liability Caps for Delay and Performance Liquidated Damages

    For Whom Additional Insured Coverage Applies in New York

    Better Building Rules Would Help U.K.'s Flooding Woes, CEP Says

    A Funny Thing Happened to My Ground Lease in Bankruptcy Court
    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

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    June 30, 2011 —

    The Nevada Supreme Court has issued an opinion in the case of Rayburn Lawn & Landscape Designers v. Plaster Development Corporation, reversing the decision of the lower court and remanding the case for a new trial.

    The case originated in a construction defect suit in which Plaster Development Corporation was sued by homeowners. Plaster filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractor, Reyburn. The testimony of Reyburn’s owner was considered to be admission of liability and so the court limited the scope of Reyburn’s closing argument and did not allow the jury to determine the extent of Reyburn’s liability. Reyburn appealed.

    Plaster, in their case, cited California’s Crawford v. Weather Sheild MFG, Inc. The court held the application of these standards, but noted that the “an indemnitor’s duty to defend an indemnitee is limited to those claims directly attributed to the indemnitor’s scope of work and does not include defending against claims arising from the negligence of other subcontractors and the indemnittee’s own negligence.”

    On the matter of law against Reyburn, the court concluded, “Given the conflicting evidence at trial as to whether Reyburn’s work was implicated in the defective retaining walls and sidewalls, and viewing the evidence and inferences in Reyburn’s favor, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have granted relief in favor of Reyburn.” The Nevada Supreme Court conduced that the district court should not have granted Plaster’s motion for judgement.

    Further, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the district court should have apportioned the fees and costs to those claims directly attributed to Reyburn’s scope of work, “if any,” and should not have assigned all attorney costs and court fees to Reyburn.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

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

    November 15, 2021 —
    Google Bay View, the company’s newest campus, consists of three squat buildings nestled near the San Francisco Bay shoreline a few miles east of its headquarters in Mountain View, Calif. The first things visitors notice are the roofs. They curve down gently from pinched peaks, like circus tents, sloping almost to the ground. Each roof is blanketed with overlapping solar panels that glisten with a brushed metal sheen on the edges. Google calls this design Dragonscale, and indeed it looks as if a mystical beast is curled up by the water in Silicon Valley. Google envisions its latest campus as the embodiment of a grander ambition to run its operations entirely free of carbon. The company plans to open Bay View in January to “a limited number” of employees, depending on the pandemic. Beneath the buildings, thousands of concrete pillars plunged into the ground will serve as a sort of geothermal battery, storing heat to warm the building and water supply without natural gas. The roof panels were constructed with a unique textured glass to prevent glare and with canopies that emit a soft, glowing light into the spacious atria inside. “We call this the Cathedral of Work,” says Asim Tahir, who oversees energy decisions in Google’s real estate division. He stands by the southern entrance in a hard hat, mask, and safety vest. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mark Bergen, Bloomberg

    Protecting Your Business From Liability Claims Stemming From COVID-19 Exposure

    June 01, 2020 —
    Businesses of every nature – including grocery stores, banks, daycares, gyms and restaurants – may face increasing liability claims from customers and third parties claiming to have been exposed to the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19, while at their location. The novel virus raises issues as to whether businesses have a heightened duty of care to their customers, and what type of exposure businesses face if a customer claims to have been exposed to COVID-19 while at their premises. Recently, a lawsuit was filed against Princess Cruise lines for gross negligence in allowing passengers to be exposed to COVID-19 on a cruise ship. The lawsuit alleges that the cruise ship was allowed to go out to sea knowing that it was infected from two previous passengers who came down with symptoms of COVID-19. It further claims that the passengers were not warned of the potential exposure either before or after they boarded the ship. In other news reports around the country, business owners have reported taking extraordinary precautions to prevent customers’ risk of contracting COVID-19. For example, one grocery store recently reported that it discarded $35,000 worth of food after a customer coughed on fresh produce. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Andrew Hamelsky, Jenifer Scarcella and Joshua Tumen Mr. Hamelsky may be contacted at hamelskya@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Scarcella may be contacted at scarcellaj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Tumen may be contacted at tumenj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Action Violation

    October 26, 2017 —
    Two recent decisions from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Federal Claims highlight that sureties and bond producers are not immune to the potentially severe consequences of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) and related federal fraud statutes. In each case, the Court determined that sureties and bond producers can face potential liability under these fraud statutes for direct and indirect submission of false claims to the federal government Reprinted courtesy of Michael C. Zisa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Susan Elliott, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Zisa may be contacted at mzisa@pecklaw.com Ms. Elliott may be contacted at selliott@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Loss Ensuing from Alleged Faulty Workmanship is Covered

    July 19, 2017 —
    The federal district court found that under Montana law, water damage resulting from alleged faulty workmanship in repairing the insured's roof was covered. Leep v. Trinity Universal Ins Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86759 (D. Mont. June 6, 2017). The insured's property was damaged in a hail storm. The insured contracted with Sprauge to repair the hail damage. Sprauge tore off and replaced roof lining and shingles. Sprague replaced a vent cap and tubes, but did not replace any vent piping or vents. The contract between the insured and Sprauge provided it was the owners' responsibility to check the exhaust vents for all furnaces and water heaters after the roofing project was completed. Subsequent to the repairs, water was found dripping from a bathroom fan. Moisture was also found on the second story emanating from the ceiling. Finally, in the attic, the furnace vent piping was disconnected and the furnace exhaust was venting into the attic. 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

    With No Evidence of COVID-19 Being Present, DC Trial Court Finds No Claim for Business Interruption

    September 28, 2020 —
    A D.C. Superior Court rejected a business interruption claim due to closures related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Rose's 1, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exchange, Civil Case No 2020 CA 002424 B (Order dated Aug. 8, 2020). The decision is here. Plaintiffs owned a number of restaurants in the District of Coiumbia. Plaintiffs had commercial property coverage in a policy issued by Erie. The policy provided coverage for loss of income sustained due to interruption of business resulting directly from "loss or damage" to the insured property. DC Mayor Bowser issued a series of orders in March 2020 which closed all non-essential businesses, including plaintiffs' restaurants. Plaintiffs filed claims with Erie. When coverage was denied, plaintiffs filed suit. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The dispute centered on whether the closure of the restaurants due to the mayor's orders constituted a "direct physical loss" under the policy. Plaintiffs argued that the loss of use of the restaurants was "direct" because the closures were the direct result of the mayor's orders without intervening action. The court reasoned, however, that the orders were governmental edicts that commanded individuals and businesses to take certain actions. Standing alone and absent intervening actions by individuals and businesses, the orders did not effect any direct changes to the properties. 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

    Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Agent May Be Liable for Failing to Submit Claim

    November 01, 2022 —
    After the agent informed the insured there was no coverage and submitting a claim would be a useless effort, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of the insured's suit against the agent. Pflueger, Inc. v. AIG Holdings, Inc., 2022 Haw. App. LEXIS 279 (Haw. Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2022). In May 2008, Pflueger notified its agent, Noguchi & Associates, Inc., that it had received federal grand jury subpoenas. Noguchi informed Pflueger that the subpoenas did not qualify as a "claim" under two policies issued by National Union. Consequently, Noguchi did not forward a claim or the subpoenas to National Union and did not seek clarification as to whether the grand jury subpoenas were covered under the policies. Pflueger relied upon Noguchi's representations and took no further action until its attorney submitted a demand letter tendering Pflueger's defense to Nation Union nine months later, in February 2009. 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

    Feds Used Wire to Crack Las Vegas HOA Scam

    July 31, 2013 —
    Court documents have revealed that the FBI used informants wearing listening devices in order to uncover the plan to take over Las Vegas area homeowner associations with the intent of bilking the residents through backdoor agreements on construction defect claims. The Las Vegas Review-Journal notes one important step was when the FBI managed to get a member of the Mission Pointe board to act as an informant. The FBI informant was recruited by one of the conspirators, Sami Robert Hindiyeh. The informant eventually spoke with Benzer himself. The plan was to convince the community manager of Mission Pointe to take bribes, all part of rigging the board election. At one point, the informant was paid $20,000 for his help in convincing the manager to take part. The manager had agreed to play along in the FBI sting. Ralph Priola, one of the conspirators, told the informant that “as long as we keep everything on the up and up, that’s the way our company operates.” Later Priola asked the informant if legitimate ballots could be swapped out for those voting for Benzer’s candidates. But the election didn’t happen. The FBI raided Benzer’s office, bringing the scam to its end. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of