BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction 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


    Cumulative Impact Claims and Definition by Certain Boards

    Housing Affordability Down

    Yellen Has Scant Power to Relieve U.S. Housing Slowdown

    Local Government’s Claims on Developer Bonds Dismissed for Failure to Pursue Administrative Remedies

    Dave McLain included in the 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America

    How to Mitigate Lien Release Bond Premiums with Disappearing Lien Claimants

    Mass. Gas Leak Follows NTSB Final Report, Call for Reforms

    Judge Sentences Roofing Contractor Owner in Florida PPP Fraud Case

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Affirms Broker's Liability for Failure to Renew Coverage

    Sept. 11 Victims Rejected by U.S. High Court on Lawsuit

    Grupo Mexico Spill Sparks Public Scrutiny of $150 Million Mop-Up

    Another Colorado Construction Defect Reform Bill Dies

    Canada Home Resales Post First Fall in Eight Months

    2017 Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure

    Issues to Watch Out for When Managing Remote Workers

    City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association: Clarifying the Application of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act

    The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia

    Montrose III: Appeals Court Rejects “Elective Vertical Stacking,” but Declines to Find “Universal Horizontal Exhaustion” Absent Proof of Policy Wordings

    Century Communities Acquires Dunhill Homes Las Vegas Operations

    Narberth Mayor Urges Dubious Legal Action

    Construction Up in United States

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    Cliffhanger: $451M Upgrade for Treacherous Stretch of Highway 1 in British Columbia

    MSJ Granted Equates to a Huge Victory for BWB&O & City of Murrieta Fire Department!

    Eleventh Circuit Set to Hear Challenge to Florida Law Barring Foreign Citizens From Buying Real Property

    Liability Coverage For Construction Claims May Turn On Narrow Factual Distinctions

    New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

    Hawaii Federal District Court Rejects Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    New WA Law Caps Retainage on Private Projects at 5%

    Personal Thoughts on Construction Mediation

    Private Mediations Do Not Toll The Five-Year Prosecution Statute

    Couple Claims Poor Installation of Home Caused Defects

    Contractual Indemnification Limitation on Florida Public Projects

    Virginia Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade

    Colorado’s Three-Bill Approach to Alleged Construction Defect Issues

    California Appellate Court Holds “Minimal Causal Connection” Satisfies Causation Requirement in All Risk Policies

    Biden’s Buy American Policy & What it Means for Contractors

    IoT: Take Guessing Out of the Concrete Drying Process

    Musk Backs Off Plan for Tunnel in Tony Los Angelenos' Backyard

    Architect Plans to 3D-Print a Two-Story House

    West Virginia Couple Claim Defects in Manufactured Home

    Why Insurers and Their Attorneys Need to Pay Close Attention to Their Discovery Burden in Washington

    What Are The Most Commonly Claimed Issues In Construction Defect Litigation?

    Underpowered AC Not a Construction Defect

    Several Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine’s 2023 Top Lawyers!

    Drought Dogs Developers in California's Soaring Housing Market

    Use of Dispute Review Boards in the Construction Process

    Keeping KeyArena's Landmark Lid Overhead at Climate Pledge Arena Redevelopment Is A 22,000-Ton Balancing Act

    Thieves Stole Backhoe for Use in Bank Heist

    Suppliers of Inherently Dangerous Raw Materials Remain Excluded from the Protections of the Component Parts Doctrine
    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

    Trial Court Abuses Discretion in Appointing Unqualified Umpire for Appraisal

    April 25, 2023 —
    The Texas Court of Appeals agreed with the insurer that the trial court abused its discretion in appointing an attorney as umpire in a property damage dispute. In re State Farm Lloyds, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 966 (Tex. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2023). The insured filed an application for the appointment of an umpire regarding his insurance claim for property damage to his residence. The home was damaged by a hurricane on July 25, 2020, and the parties disagreed regarding the full extent of the property damage to the residence. The appraisers appointed by the insured and State Farm disagreed on the damages, leading to the insured asking the trial court to appoint a competent and disinterested umpire. The trial court appointed Derek Salinas, an attorney, as umpire. State Farm challenged the appointment because the policy required the umpire to be either an engineer, architect, adjuster, public adjuster, or a contractor with experience and training in the construction, repair and estimating the type of property damage in dispute. State Farm argued that Salinas met none of the criteria. The trial court rejected State Farm's motion for reconsideration. 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

    New 2021 ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey Standards Effective February 23, 2021

    March 01, 2021 —
    The “Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys” is a document jointly promulgated by the American Land Title Association (ALTA), representing the title insurance industry, and the National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS), representing professional land surveyors, which describes the uniform minimum standards with which surveyors must comply when preparing a survey to be used by a title insurance company for the purpose of deleting the general survey exception from ALTA title policy forms. The first such set of standards was developed in 1962 and has since been revised 10 times. The standards are currently updated every five years and are relied on by real estate professionals, including purchasers, lenders, title insurers and their attorneys, nationwide. In October 2020, a joint committee comprising representatives of both ALTA and NSPS adopted the “2021 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys,” which will become effective on February 23, 2021. The significant changes between the 2021 standards and the previous 2016 standards are summarized below. Survey Matters The 2021 standards clarify that only survey-related matters must be summarized on the survey. This revision was intended to foreclose a practice common among some institutional lenders to require that the survey list all items shown in Schedule BII of the title commitment on the face of the survey regardless of whether those items may in fact be survey related. The 2021 standards also add a requirement that the surveyor include a note specifying whether the location of a right of way, easement or other survey-related matter is shown on the survey. This change incorporates common lender and purchaser requirements that were not previously enumerated in the survey standards. Reprinted courtesy of Emily K. Bias, Pillsbury and Josh D. Morton, Pillsbury Ms. Bias may be contacted at emily.bias@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Morton may be contacted at josh.morton@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Products Liability Law – Application of Economic Loss Rule

    April 02, 2024 —
    When it comes to product liability law, one important doctrine that will always come up is the economic loss rule. The economic loss rule, oftentimes going by its acronym ELR, lives and breathes in the realm of product liability law. Does the economic loss rule extend to a manufacturer’s distributor for a duty to warn when the product is NOT defective? A recent opinion out of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, NBIS Construction & Transport Ins. Services v. Liebherr-America, Inc., 2024 WL 861257 (11th Cir. 2024), was confronted with this question, including whether the economic loss rule should even extend to a distributor of a product, and certified the following to Florida’s Supreme Court to answer: “Whether, under Florida law, the economic loss rule applies to negligence claims against a distributor of a product, stipulated to be non-defective, for the failureto alert a product owner of a known danger, when the only damages claimed are to the product itself?” NBIS, supra, at *8. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    How Berlin’s Futuristic Airport Became a $6 Billion Embarrassment

    October 28, 2015 —
    The inspectors could hardly believe what they were seeing. Summoned from their headquarters near Munich, the team of logistics, safety, and aviation experts had arrived at newly constructed Berlin Brandenburg International Willy Brandt Airport in the fall of 2011 to begin a lengthy series of checks and approvals for the €600 million ($656 million) terminal on the outskirts of the German capital. Expected to open the following June, the airport, billed as Europe’s “most modern,” was intended to handle 27 million passengers a year and crown Berlin as the continent’s 21st century crossroads. The team of inspectors, known as ORAT, for Operations Readiness and Airport Transfer, brought in a dummy plane and volunteers as test passengers. They examined everything from baggage carousels and security gates to the fire protection system. The last was an especially high priority: None could forget the 1996 fire that roared through Düsseldorf Airport’s passenger terminal, killing 17. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Hammer, Bloomberg

    No Entitlement to Reimbursement of Pre-Tender Fees

    April 28, 2016 —
    The Federal District Court for the District of Hawaii determined that the insured was not entitled to pre-tender defense fees. The Hanover Ins. Co. v. Anova Food, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38947 (D. Haw. March 24, 2016). Anova sold and marketed fish. It was insured under policies issued by Hanover that covered claims of "personal and advertising injury." A patent infringement and false advertising case was filed against Anova in the District Court for the District of Hawaii.The underlying complaint alleged Anova falsely, misleadingly, and deceptively advertised, promoted, and sold fish. The allegations covered a period of time between 1999 and 2012, a portion of which time Anova was covered by the Hanover policies. 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

    New York Appellate Division: Second Department Contradicts First Department, Denying Insurer's Recoupment of Defense Costs for Uncovered Claims

    March 01, 2021 —
    New York law has historically allowed insurers to recoup defense costs paid on behalf of an insured if there is ultimately no coverage for the underlying action, provided that the insurer reserved its rights to seek reimbursement. On December 30, 2020, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department declined to follow this longstanding principle in American Western Home Insurance Co. v. Gjonaj Realty & Mgt. Co.,1 by holding that the insurer was not entitled to recoup defense costs, even where it was determined that the claim was not covered under the insurance policy. In American W. Home Ins. Co., the insureds were named as defendants in an underlying personal injury action. More than four years after the accident, and a $900,000 default judgment against the insureds, they tendered the lawsuit to their commercial general liability insurer, American Western Home Insurance Company (“American”). American denied coverage based on untimely notice, but after the default judgment was subsequently vacated, it agreed to defend the underlying action subject to a reservation of rights. The reservation of rights specifically reserved American’s right to deny coverage if the vacatur of the default judgment against the insureds was reversed. Further, American reserved its right to recover the costs of defending the underlying litigation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jasjeet K. Sahani, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Sahani may be contacted at JSahani@sdvlaw.com

    16 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2021 Top Lawyers!

    September 20, 2021 —
    Congratulations to Wilke Fleury’s featured attorneys who made the Sacramento Magazine’s Top Lawyer List for 2021! The voting for Professional Research Services’ survey to determine the top attorneys in 2021 for Sacramento Magazine was open to all licensed attorneys in Sacramento, Calif. Attorneys were asked whom they would recommend among 56 legal specialties, other than themselves, in the Sacramento area. Each attorney was allowed to recommend up to three colleagues in each given legal specialty. Once the online nominations were complete, each nominee was carefully evaluated on the basis of the survey results, the legitimacy of their license, and their current standing with the State Bar of California. Attorneys who received the highest number of votes in each specialty are reflected in the following list. – Sacramento Magazine Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury LLP

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Insurer Must Defend Oil Company Against Entire Lawsuit

    October 07, 2019 —
    The Georgia Court of Appeals recently affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of Mountain Express Oil Company on its breach of contract claim against liability insurer, Southern Trust Insurance Company. Empire Petroleum brought claims against Mountain Express for breach of contract, injunctive relief, and libel or slander, among others. Mountain Express sought a defense to that lawsuit under its insurance policy with Southern Trust. Southern Trust contended that the insurance policy did not cover Empire’s non-libel/slander claims, and therefore reimbursed Mountain Express for only a portion of its attorneys’ fees. After the Empire lawsuit settled, Mountain Express sued Southern Trust for breach of contract and bad faith for failing to pay the remaining defense costs, contending that Southern Trust had a duty to defend the entire lawsuit. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Mountain Express on its breach of contract claim. Citing policy language stating that “[the insurer] will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any ‘suit’ seeking those damages,” the court held that Southern Trust was obligated to defend the entire lawsuit. Specifically, in reaching that conclusion, the court noted that by agreeing to defend any “suit,” not any “claim,” Southern Trust obligated itself to defend the entire lawsuit if any claim could be covered under the policy. Accordingly, Southern Trust breached the policy when it only agreed to defend some of the claims against its insured. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Alexander D. Russo, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of