BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projects
    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


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

    Workarounds for Workers' Comp Immunity: How to Obtain Additional Insured Coverage when the Named Insured is Immune from Suit

    New Opportunities for “Small” Construction Contractors as SBA Adjusts Its Size Standards Again Due to Unprecedented Inflation

    Defects, Delays and Change Orders

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (2/21/24) – Fed Chair Predicts More Small Bank Closures, Shopping Center Vacancies Hit 15-year Low, and Proptech Sees Mixed Results

    Time Limits on Hidden Construction Defects

    Courthouse Reporter Series: Two Recent Cases Address Copyright Protection for Architectural Works

    Fed Inflation Goal Is Elusive as U.S. Rents Stabilize: Economy

    Homeowner's Mold Claim Denied Due to Spoilation

    A Guide to California’s Changes to Civil Discovery Rules

    PA Superior Court Provides Clarification on Definition of CGL “Occurrence” When Property Damage Is Caused by Faulty Building Conditions

    Construction Defects not Creating Problems for Bay Bridge

    French President Vows to Rebuild Fire-Collapsed Notre Dame Roof and Iconic Spire

    HP Unveils Cheaper, 3-D Printing System to Spur Sales

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap - Undocumented Change Work

    U.K. to Set Out Plan for Fire-Risk Apartment Cladding Crisis

    Timely and Properly Assert Affirmative Defenses and Understand Statutory Conditions Precedent

    What Will the 2024 Construction Economy Look Like?

    Michigan Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade, Improving from "D+" Grade in 2018

    The Ups and Downs of Elevator Maintenance Contractor's Policy Limits

    Alabama “occurrence” and subcontractor work exception to the “your completed work” exclusion

    Brazil Builder Bondholders Burned by Bribery Allegations

    Texas Legislature Puts a Spear in Doctrine Making Contractor Warrantor of Owner Furnished Plans and Specifications

    Why Builders Should Reconsider Arbitration Clauses in Construction Contracts

    A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Substitution Hearings Under California’s Listing Law

    Understanding the Real Estate and Tax Implications of Florida's Buyer Ban Law

    United States Supreme Court Limits Class Arbitration

    Competition to Design Washington D.C.’s 11th Street Bridge Park

    LAX Construction Defect Suit May Run into Statute of Limitations

    Boston Developer Sues Contractor Alleging Delays That Cost Millions

    Berger: FIGG Is Slow To Hand Over All Bridge Collapse Data

    Beware of Design Pitfalls In Unfamiliar Territory

    The General Assembly Adds Some Clarity to Contracts and Unlicensed Contractors

    Yet ANOTHER Reminder to Always Respond

    Amos Rex – A Museum for the Digital Age

    Don’t Spoil Me: Oklahoma District Court Rules Against Spoliation Sanctions

    Strategic Communication Considerations for Contractors Regarding COVID-19

    Builders Can’t Rely on SB800

    California Mechanics’ Lien Case Treads Both Old and New Ground

    Congratulations to Partner Alex Giannetto for Being Named to San Diego Business Journal’s Top 100 Leaders in Law List

    Drones, Googleplexes and Hyperloops

    New Notary Language For Mechanics Lien Releases and Stop Payment Notice Releases

    The “Right to Repair” Construction Defects in the Rocky Mountain and Plains Region

    Georgia House Bill Addresses Construction Statute of Repose

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/17/23) – A Flop in Flipping, Plastic Microbes and Psychological Hard Hats

    Los Angeles Is Building a Future Where Water Won’t Run Out

    Arezoo Jamshidi Selected to the 2023 San Diego Super Lawyers List

    AI AEC Show: Augmenta Gives Designers Superpowers

    Developers Can Tap into DOE’s $400 Million for Remote and Rural Clean Energy Projects

    Did New York Zero Tolerance Campaign Improve Jobsite Safety?
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    New York Preserves Subrogation Rights

    September 06, 2023 —
    The insurer’s right of subrogation is equitable in nature, even if not based in contract. However, since the insurer steps into the shoes of its insured and is limited to the rights of its insured, an integral part of the investigation process is determining what rights the insured has. Whether or not the insured can settle with the tortfeasor and that whether the settlement would also apply to the subrogated carrier is a question the Supreme Court of New York, a trial court, recently addressed. In Utica First Ins. Co. v. Homeport I LLC, et al., No. 150448/2022, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3087 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), the plaintiff insurance carrier’s insured, SI Waterfront Management Inc. (SI Waterfront), owned and operated a restaurant called Wynwood at 24 Navy Pier Court in Staten Island, New York. The owner of the property was Homeport I LLC (Homeport). Significant construction work pertaining to plumbing and draining lines at the property was done by Ironstate Holdings, LLC (Ironstate), the plumbing portion of which was conducted by subcontractor Claire Construction Corp. (Claire). As a result of the construction work, on June 8, 2021, SI Waterfront allegedly sustained property damage from flooding. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

    Subcontractor Exception to Your Work Exclusion Paves the Way for Coverage

    April 03, 2013 —
    In a brief opinion, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's denial of coverage for construction defects. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. R.I. Pools Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5680 (2nd Cir. March 21, 2013). The insured, R.I. Pools, employed outside companies to supply concrete and to shoot the concrete into the ground. During the summer of 2006, it obtained its concrete from one subcontractor and used another to shoot the concrete. In 2009, nineteen customers of R.I. Pools from 2006 complained damage to their pools, including cracking, flaking, and deteriorating concrete. Scottsdale sought a declaratory judgment against R.I. Pools that it had no obligations under the policy to defend or indemnify for claims related to cracks in the pools. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Hunton Insurance Group Advises Policyholders on Issues That Arise With Wildfire Claims and Coverage – A Seven-Part Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series

    June 27, 2022 —
    Wildfires destroy millions of acres a year in the United States, spewing smoke across much of the nation. The cost of damage alone over the past several years soars into the hundreds of billions. As wildfires continue to spread, particularly as we enter wildfire season, policyholders’ claims will rise and with that, so too will wildfire insurance coverage issues. Many believe that when a fire damages their property and/or interrupts their business operations, a claim gets submitted and is automatically paid; sadly, this is often not the case. In a seven-part series delving into issues relating to wildfire insurance coverage, the Hunton insurance group provides a comprehensive understanding of the types of policies that may be available, legal and factual issues that may arise, and steps policyholders can take – both in advance and during the claims process – to maximize recovery. The following issues will be addressed:
    • Part One: Types of Wildfire-Related Losses and the Policies That May Provide Coverage
    • Part Two: Coverage for Smoke-Related Damages
    • Part Three: Standard Form Policy Exclusions
    • Part Four: Coverage for Supply Chain Related Losses
    • Part Five: Valuation of Loss, Sublimits, and Amount of Potential Recovery
    • Part Six: Ensuring Availability of Insurance and State Regulations
    • Part Seven: How to Successfully Prepare, Submit and Negotiate the Claim
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Extreme Flooding Overwhelms New York Roadways, Killing 1 Person

    July 24, 2023 —
    NEW YORK (AP) — Heavy rain spawned extreme flooding in New York’s Hudson Valley that killed at least one person, swamped roadways and forced road closures on Sunday night, as much of the rest of the Northeast U.S. braced Monday for potentially punishing rains. As the storm moved east, the National Weather Service extended flash flood warnings into Connecticut, including the cities of Stamford and Greenwich, before creeping into Massachusetts. Forecasters said some areas could get as much as 5 inches (12 centimeters) of rain. In New York's Hudson Valley, rescue teams found the body of a woman in her 30s who drowned after being swept away while trying to evacuate her home, Orange County Executive Steven Neuhaus told WABC-TV. Officials were waiting for the medical examiner's office to arrive, he said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    January 06, 2012 —

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a summary judgment in the case of American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Co. Several other insurance companies were party to this case. In the earlier case, the US District Court of Appeals for Arizona had granted a summary judgment to Ohio Casualty Group and National Fire & Marine Insurance Company. At the heart of it, is a dispute over construction defect coverage.

    The general contractor for Astragal Luxury Villas, GFTDC, contracted with American Family to provide it with a commercial liability policy. Coverage was issued to various subcontractors by Ohio Casualty and National Fire. These policies included blanket additional insured endorsements that provided coverage to GFTDC. The subcontractor policies had provisions making their coverage excess over other policies available to GFTDC.

    The need for insurance was triggered when the Astragal Condominium Unit Owners Association filed a construction defect claim in the Arizona Superior Court. CFTDC filed a third-party claim against several subcontractors. The case was settled with American Family paying the settlement, after which it filed seeking reimbursement from the subcontractor’s insurers. The court instead granted summary judgment in favor of Ohio Casualty and National Fire.

    American Family appealed to the Ninth Circuit for a review of the summary judgment, arguing that the “other insurance” clauses were “mutually repugnant and unenforceable.” The Ninth Circuit cited a case from the Arizona Court of Appeals that held that “where two policies cover the same occurrence and both contain ‘other insurance’ clauses, the excess insurance provisions are mutually repugnant and must be disregarded. Each insurer is then liable for a pro rate share of the settlement or judgment.”

    The court noted that unlike other “other insurance” cases, the American Family policy “states that it provides primary CGL coverage for CFTDC and is rendered excess only if there is ‘any other primary insurance’ available to GFTDC as an additional insured.” They note that “the American Family policy purports to convert from primary to excess coverage only if CFTDC has access to other primary insurance as an additional insured.”

    In comparison, the court noted that “the ‘other insurance’ language in Ohio Casualty’s additional insured endorsement cannot reasonably be read to contradict, or otherwise be inconsistent with, the ‘other primary insurance’ provision in the American Family policy.” They find other reasons why National Fire’s coverage did not supersede American Family’s. In this case, the policy is “written explicitly to apply in excess.”

    Finally, the Astragal settlement did not exhaust American Family’s coverage, so they were obligated to pay out the full amount. The court upheld the summary dismissal of American Family’s claims.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    First Railroad Bridge Between Russia and China Set to Open

    August 06, 2019 —
    Work was completed on the first-ever railroad bridge connecting Russia to China in early April, as Russian engineers installed the final steel beam in its section of the structure over the river called the Amur in Russian and the Heilongjiang. China finished its part of the work last October, as the structure successfully spanned the world's 10th longest river, which markets the boundary between the two countries. Officials say the bridge will open for public use after the necessary inspections in July this year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Saibal Dasgupta, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Defense Victory in Breach of Fiduciary Action

    February 26, 2015 —
    Earlier this month, Scott Calkins and Anthony Gaeta of Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli, LLP obtained a defense verdict in a breach of fiduciary duty action involving a high-rise condominium in downtown San Diego, California. The Association asked for excess of over $3 million, however, the jury returned with a 10-2 defense verdict in favor of K. Hovnanian. Cortez Blu Community Association, Inc. v. K. Hovnanian at Cortez Hill, LLC, et al. initially involved construction defect claims against the developer, K. Hovnanian, and the general contractor, Turner Construction, as well as a claim of breach of fiduciary duty. However, the construction defect claims settled prior to trial leaving only the breach of fiduciary claim. “While it is now becoming ever more common for attorneys representing homeowners associations to allege a breach of fiduciary duty by the developer, there has been little actual litigation of the issues surrounding those claims which test the viability of the allegations or the defenses to them,” defense attorney Anthony Gaeta stated. “A breach of a fiduciary duty by a developer, which is demonstrated to damage the viability of an HOA either to perform regularly scheduled maintenance, or replace building components from its reserves, has the potential in economic terms to surpass the damages from purported construction defects. The Plaintiff argued that K. Hovnanian breached its fiduciary duty to the Association by failing to set adequate reserves within the initial Department of Real Estate budget (“DRE”) for painting, caulking, and power washing the exterior of the building, referencing Raven’s Cove Townhomes, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Co., Inc. (1981) 114 Cal. App. 3d 783. In response, K. Hovnanian stated that in part, the initial reserves as set forth in the DRE budget were adequate, good faith estimates and, therefore, there was no liability for breach of fiduciary duty. “Our case was exclusively concerned with the duties of the developer when forming the initial HOA, preliminary budgets, and reserves,” Gaeta said. “We litigated the duties and responsibilities of the initial board and whether a developer may rely on reports prepared by third-parties during the formation of a common interest development. The jury found our client’s actions and reliance on third-parties was reasonable and, thus, no breach of fiduciary duty occurred.” Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli is a general civil litigation firm representing clients throughout California and Arizona. You may learn more about the firm at www.cslawoffices.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Does the New Jersey Right-To-Repair Law Omit Too Many Construction Defects?

    January 06, 2012 —

    A post on the blog of Liberty Building Forensics Group find fault with the New Jersey Home Warranty and Builders’ Registration Act for not being stringent enough. The poster notes the coverage given under the bill. In the first year, builders are responsible to remedy faulty workmanship and materials and major structural defects. While other protections expire in the first or second year, there is a ten year coverage of major construction defects.

    The blogger finds fault with the exclusion New Jersey law places on these claims, arguing that “due to the stringent definition of ‘major construction defects,” the warranty affords no coverage unless the house is practically collapsing.” The bill excludes leaks, cracks, and mold, and further limits claims if the homeowner has failed to inform the builder or insurer of defects, failure to maintain the home, and alterations made by the homeowner.

    The intent of the New Jersey law is given as “requiring that newly constructed homes conform to certain construction and quality standards as well as to provide buyers of new homes with insurance-backed warranty protection in the event such standards are not met.” It’s argued in the piece that it instead serves to “strip homeowners of any meaningful means of recovery for discovered construction defects.”

    Read the full story…

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