BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expert
    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


    Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer

    HOA Foreclosure Excess Sale Proceeds Go to Owner

    Norfolk Southern Accused of Trying to Destroy Evidence of Ohio Wreck

    Boston Catwalk Collapse Injures Three Workers

    Insurers Get “Floored” by Court of Appeals Regarding the Presumptive Measure of Damages in Consent Judgments

    The American Rescue Plan Act: What Restaurants Need to Act on NOW

    Know What You’ve Built: An Interview with Timo Makkonen of Congrid

    New Safety Requirements added for Keystone Pipeline

    Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: LESLIE KING O'NEAL

    Construction Termination Issues Part 4: What to Do When They Want to Fire You, the Architect or Engineer

    What ‘The Curse’ Gets Wrong About Passive House Architecture

    Maui Wildfire Cleanup Advances to Debris Removal Phase

    Congratulations to Wilke Fleury’s 2024 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!!

    Hunton Insurance Coverage Partner Lawrence J. Bracken II Awarded Emory Public Interest Committee’s 2024 Lifetime Commitment to Public Service Award

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twenty White and Williams Lawyers

    When an Insurer Proceeds as Subrogee, Defendants Cannot Assert Contribution Claims Against the Insured

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

    Federal Subcontractor Who Failed to Follow FAR Regulations Finds That “Fair” and “Just” are Not Synonymous

    Minneapolis Condo Shortage Blamed on Construction Defect Law

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed To Prove Supplier’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Caused A SB800 Violation

    Form Contracts are Great, but. . .

    Substantial Completion Explained: What Contractors & Owners Should Know

    A Court-Side Seat: NWP 12 and the Dakota Access Pipeline Easement Get Forced Vacations, while a Potential Violation of the Eighth Amendment Isn’t Going Anywhere

    The Cross-Party Exclusion: The Hazards of Additional Named Insured Provisions

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 4: Coverage for Supply Chain Related Losses

    Ex-Turner Exec Gets 46 Months for Bloomberg Construction Bribes

    Coyness is Nice. Just Not When Seeking a Default Judgment

    ASCE Statement on Calls to Suspend the Federal Gas Tax

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

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Brings Professional Development Series to Their Houston Office

    What’s the Best Way to “Use” a Construction Attorney?

    California Court of Appeals Says, “We Like Eich(leay)!”

    California Mechanics’ Lien Case Treads Both Old and New Ground

    An Obligation to Provide Notice and an Opportunity to Cure May not End after Termination, and Why an Early Offer of Settlement Should Be Considered on Public Works Contracts

    Engineers Found ‘Hundreds’ of Cracks in California Bridge

    Industrialized Construction News 7/2022

    Housing Sales Hurt as Fewer Immigrants Chase Owner Dream

    Virtual Mediation – How Do I Make It Work for Me?

    Several Lewis Brisbois Partners Recognized by Sacramento Magazine in List of Top Lawyers

    Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

    Allegations Confirm Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Bankruptcy on a Construction Project: Coronavirus Edition

    Louisiana Court Applies Manifestation Trigger to Affirm Denial of Coverage

    Goldberg Segalla Welcomes William L. Nimick

    Beyond Inverse Condemnation in Wildfire Litigation: An Oregon Jury Finds Utility Liable for Negligence, Trespass and Nuisance

    California Supreme Court Holds Insured Entitled to Coverage Under CGL Policy for Negligent Hiring

    California Contractors: Amended Section 7141.5 Provides Important License Renewal Safety Net

    Colorado Defective Construction is Not Considered "Property Damage"

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa Rolle and Christopher Acosta Win Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

    Eleven Payne & Fears Attorneys Honored by Best Lawyers
    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

    The ABCs of PFAS: What You Need to Know About Liabilities for the “Forever Chemical”

    February 22, 2021 —
    This article is based on a presentation the authors made at White and Williams LLP’s Virtual Coverage College® on October 22, 2020. Every year, hundreds of insurance professionals come to Philadelphia—this year via our online platform—to participate in a full day of lectures and interactive presentations by White and Williams lawyers and guest panelists about the latest issues and challenges involved in claim handling and insurance litigation. Visit coveragecollege.com for more information and stay tuned for Coverage College® 2021. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly referred to as PFAS or PFOS, have been a key ingredient in numerous industrial and consumer products for decades. These man-made chemicals are prevalent and are also known for their longevity in the environment. More recently, PFAS have been the focus of thousands of lawsuits alleging personal injury and property damage. Some insurers have already questioned whether PFAS could rival asbestos in scope and bottom-line impacts. It is a legacy that confronts manufacturers and other defendants and insurers today. This article provides a primer on PFAS, including the current regulatory framework and litigation landscape. We also identify some key emerging coverage issues insurers should be aware of when dealing with PFAS claims under liability and first-party property policies. Reprinted courtesy of Robert F. Walsh, White and Williams LLP and Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP Mr. Walsh may be contacted at walshr@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Failure to Comply with Contract Leaves No Additional Insured Coverage

    January 07, 2015 —
    Indemnity obligations and additional insured coverage were at issue in Strauss Painting, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 3347 (N.Y. Nov. 24, 2014). Strauss Painting, Inc. (Strauss) contracted with the Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc. (the Met) to strip and repaint the rooftop steel carriage track for the opera house's automated window-washing equipment. The contract provided that Strauss would indemnify and hold the Met harmless. Exhibit D to the contract set forth three types of insurance that Strauss was to procure: (1) workers' compensation; (2) owners and contractors protective liability (OCP); and (3) comprehensive general liability. The OCP policy was to add the Met as an additional insured. Strauss failed to obtain the OCP policy. At the time it contracted with the Met, Strauss had a CGL policy issued by Mt. Hawley. The policy's additional insured endorsement (ICO form CG 20 33 07 04) stated that "an insured" included "any organization for whom Strauss is performing operations when Strauss and such organization have agreed in writing that such organization be added as an additional insured." 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

    Blackouts Require a New Look at Backup Power

    April 06, 2020 —
    Recent blackouts on both East and West coasts are causing commercial property owners to reassess their need for backup power. The likelihood of more-frequent blackouts means backup power must evolve from ensuring the safe exit of office workers to enabling core business functions to continue uninterrupted. That’s a major shift in preparedness that construction executives should consider in future planning. In New York City on July 13, 2019, a Con Edison blackout left 72,000 customers in Manhattan and Queens without power primarily because of a flawed connection at an electrical substation. Eight days later, a second Con Edison blackout left more than 50,000 customers, mostly in Brooklyn, without power due to high usage during a heat wave. These events occurred even though, as Con Edison stated, the New York City grid is one of the most complex and technologically advanced in the world and contains multiple layers of redundancy. In northern and central California in late October, 2019, intentional blackouts were implemented by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) on a massive scale in response to out-of-control wildfires. “Never before in California history have more than 2 million people gone five days without electrical power because of the intentional safety policy of a utility,” reported the Los Angeles Times. It was the second massive blackout in California in two weeks, after PG&E had earlier shut off power to almost 2 million people in rolling blackouts. The blackouts on both coasts are remarkable not only for their breadth but for the range of causes—from limiting wildfires sparked in part by faulty, above-ground, power lines to a flawed connection at a substation to overuse during a heat wave. The conditions creating those causes are not likely to subside, and Con Edison warned this summer of more service outages to come. In California, The Washington Post writes, “blackouts are redefining the prosperous state.” Reprinted courtesy of John McBride, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    May 29, 2023 —
    In our latest roundup, we look at a downturn in home-flipping and a continuing overabundance of commercial office space, plus psychological support for construction workers and surging demand for industrial space materials. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

    December 20, 2012 —
    In Pioneer Tower Owners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 12 NY3d 302 (2009), the New York Court of Appeals found an "earth movement" exclusion was ambiguous when applied to an excavation. The court now considered whether a similar exclusion, expressly made applicable to "man made" movement of earth, eliminated the ambiguity when loss was created by excavation. Bentoria Holdings, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2012 N.Y. LEXIS 3087 (N.Y. Oct. 25, 2012). Plaintiff's building suffered cracks due to an excavation being conducted on the lot next door. A claim was submitted to Travelers, plaintiff's insurer. Travelers rejected the claim, relying on the earth movement exclusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii.
    Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Summary Judgment Granted to Insurer for Hurricane Damage

    January 24, 2022 —
    The insurer's motion for summary judgment, contending there was no coverage for hurricane damage, was granted. Laurence v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227807 (S.D. Texas Nov. 29, 2021). When Hurricane Harvey hit, Mike Laurence held a homeowner's policy from Liberty Insurance Corporation and a contractor policy for his business, Pride Plumbing, Inc., issued by State Farm Lloyds. Laurence's property suffered water damage during the storm. State Farm investigated and concluded that all but a small amount, within the policy's deductible, was from flood damage and excluded. Laurence sued. The property covered by the State Farm policy included Laurence's home, Pride Plumbing's office and two sheds. Pride Pluming did not own or lease any of the buildings on the property. Laurence testified in his deposition that the only damage to his property not caused by flood water was to three buildings from fallen tree limbs and equipment from his business. 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

    Contractors Should Be Optimistic that the Best Value Tradeoff Process Will Be Employed by Civilian Agencies

    September 10, 2018 —
    In The Fiscal Year 2019 NDAA Imposes Government-Wide Limitations on the Use of Lowest-Price Technically Acceptable Procurements, Pillsbury attorneys Dick Oliver and Aaron Ralph are optimistic that contractors will soon have additional legal authority to demonstrate to civilian agencies that a best value tradeoff process should be employed.
    • Congress’ trend of limiting the use of the much-derided lowest price, technically acceptable (LPTA) procurement process continues.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law

    October 22, 2014 —
    It has been almost two years since the California legislature enacted changes to the state’s indemnity law affecting commercial construction contracts. Although we do not yet have any court opinions analyzing the new statutes, the attorneys at Newmeyer & Dillion now have real world experience in negotiating such indemnity provisions. It is time to evaluate how the construction community has reacted to the changes. In this article, we examine the practical applications of the new law to various construction agreements. Enacted on January 1, 2013, the new legislation was the latest in a series of efforts by subcontractors and their insurers to eliminate “Type I” indemnity clauses. Under a Type I provision, a subcontractor has a duty to indemnify the developer or general contractor for the negligence of the developer or general contractor or other subcontractors, in addition to the negligence of the subcontractor itself. In 2006, the law was changed to preclude Type I provisions regarding “For Sale” residential construction defect claims. At that time, there was no such restriction enacted for commercial construction contracts. However, since then, commercial subcontractors have been seeking similar legislation. Their efforts culminated in the 2013 revisions regarding commercial contracts. Commercial Subcontracts Pursuant to the new indemnity statute — Civil Code section 2782.05 — we have revised our clients’ commercial subcontracts to: (a) Eliminate the requirement that the subcontractor indemnify the general contractor for the general contractor’s “active negligence;” and (b) Include the subcontractor’s options for defending claims for which they have an indemnity obligation. Many subcontractors have responded: “Hey, wait a minute, the new legislation eliminated Type I indemnity so you (general contractor) cannot still require any indemnification for the general contractor’s negligence”. Well, that might be the rumor in subcontractor circles, but the new statute does not eliminate indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. In addition, the Civil Code lists 13 instances where the new indemnity restrictions do not apply. Residential Subcontracts The legislature did not make anyone’s job easier by drafting a different indemnity provision for commercial subcontracts than for residential subcontracts. In fact, the residential and commercial statutes are different in several critical respects. First, the restrictions on indemnity in the residential statute apply only to construction defect claims in newly constructed “For Sale” houses. The statute does not preclude Type I indemnity provisions for any other claims arising out of residential subcontracts. In contrast, the indemnity restrictions in the commercial statute apply to all claims arising out of commercial subcontracts. In addition, the commercial statute allows indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. Since some subcontractors on “residential” projects perform off-site “commercial” work as well, we have amended even residential subcontracts to address the subcontractors’ various indemnity obligations for different parts of their work (e.g., residential work versus commercial work). Owner-Contractor Agreements The January 1, 2013 new indemnity provisions apply not only to subcontracts, but also to owner-contractor agreements. Civil Code section 2782(c)(1) precludes indemnity for an owner’s active negligence. Interestingly, the exclusions contained in Civil Code section 2782.05 for subcontracts do not apply, and the statute does not provide contractors with the option of defending claims set forth in the sections concerning subcontracts. Therefore, we have revised the indemnity provisions in owner-contractor agreements to exclude indemnity for the owner’s active negligence. Design Professional Agreements The 2007 revisions with respect to “For Sale” residential contracts (discussed above), and the 2013 revisions for commercial contracts do not apply to design professionals. The new indemnity statute concerning commercial subcontracts specifically excludes design professionals from the “anti-indemnity” benefits provided to subcontractors. Therefore, Type I indemnity provisions are fair game and can still be included in design professional contracts. Conclusion In sum, Civil Code sections 2782 et seq. now contain an increasingly complex framework for indemnity rules in construction contracts. For example, there is one set of rules for “For Sale” residential construction defect claims (no indemnity for the developer’s active or passive negligence), another for any other claims arising out of residential construction (Type I indemnity is permitted), another for commercial subcontracts (no indemnity for the general contractor’s active negligence, but indemnity for the general contractor’s passive negligence unless any of the exceptions apply, in which case Type I indemnity is permitted), and yet another for commercial owner contractor agreements (no indemnity for the owner’s active negligence, but indemnity for the owner’s passive negligence with no exceptions). California’s indemnity laws are complex, and rumors as to the impact of the new legislation have made it even more difficult to negotiate these provisions. It is imperative that indemnity clauses in construction contracts clearly delineate the obligations for the specific type or types of work contemplated by the contract. The legislature’s attempt to simplify indemnity obligations has actually made such provisions lengthier and more cumbersome. As experienced construction attorneys, our task is to draft indemnity provisions that comply with the laws, address potential claims, and are understandable. Mr. Himmelstein is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion and practices in the areas of construction, real estate, business and insurance litigation. He also specializes in drafting and negotiating construction and real estate contracts. Mark can be reached at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of