BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut civil engineer 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


    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP Attorneys to Speak at the 2016 National Construction Claims Conference

    Are Construction Defect Laws a Factor in Millennials Home Buying Decisions?

    Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

    Under Privette Doctrine, A Landowner Delegates All Responsibility For Workplace Safety to its Independent Contractor, and therefore Owes No Duty to Remedy or Adopt Measures to Protect Against Known Hazards

    Subcontractor Entitled to Defense for Defective Work Causing Property Damage Beyond Its Scope of Work

    Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project.

    Water Backup Payment Satisfies Insurer's Obligation to Cover for Rain Damage

    Improper Classification Under Davis Bacon Can Be Costly

    Home Prices in U.S. Rose 0.3% in August From July, FHFA Says

    Housing Starts in U.S. Little Changed From Stronger January

    Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects

    No Duty to Defend Additional Insured for Construction Defects

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose in June at a Slower Pace

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    Client Alert: Catch Me If You Can – Giorgio Is No Gingerbread Man

    Court Adopts Magistrate's Recommendation to Deny Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

    Ex-Turner Exec Gets 46 Months for Bloomberg Construction Bribes

    OH Supreme Court Rules Against General Contractor in Construction Defect Coverage Dispute

    OSHA Advisory Committee, Assemble!

    Michigan Claims Engineers’ Errors Prolonged Corrosion

    A Brief Discussion – Liquidating Agreements

    Competent, Substantial Evidence Carries Day in Bench Trial

    Overview of New Mexico Construction Law

    New Jersey Supreme Court Rules that Subcontractor Work with Resultant Damage is both an “Occurrence” and “Property Damage” under a Standard Form CGL Policy

    Where Parched California Is Finding New Water Sources

    Nevada OSHA Provides Additional Requirements for Construction Employers to Address Feasibility of Social Distancing at Construction Sites

    The Brexit Effect on the Construction Industry

    Sustainability Puts Down Roots in Real Estate

    Common Law Indemnity Claim Affirmed on Justifiable Beliefs

    Earthquake Hits Mid-Atlantic Region; No Immediate Damage Reports

    PSA: New COVID Vaccine ETS Issued by OSHA

    Construction Defect Claim over LAX Runways

    Sewage Flowing in London’s River Thames Draws Green Bond Demand

    Third Circuit Court of Appeals Concludes “Soup to Nuts” Policy Does Not Include Faulty Workmanship Coverage

    Broker Not Liable for Failure to Reveal Insurer's Insolvency After Policy Issued

    Insurer's Daubert Challenge to Insured's Expert Partially Successful

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    Latin America’s Biggest Corporate Crime Gets a Worthy Epic

    NYC Landlord Accused of Skirting Law With Rent-Free Months Offer

    High Attendance Predicted for West Coast Casualty Seminar

    City Drops Impact Fees to Encourage Commercial Development

    Legal Implications of 3D Printing in Construction Loom

    Will The New U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Deal Calm Industry Jitters?

    "My Bad, I Thought It Was in Good Faith" is Not Good Enough - Contractor Ordered to Pay Prompt Payment Penalties

    The 2021 Top 50 Construction Law Firms™

    Affirmed: Insureds Bear the Burden of Allocating Covered Versus Uncovered Losses

    Coronavirus and Contract Obligations

    Open & Known Hazards Under the Kinsman Exception to Privette

    New Mandatory Bond Notice Forms in Florida

    Is Arbitration Final and Binding?
    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

    Construction Defect Fund Approved for Bankrupt Las Vegas Builder

    February 11, 2013 —
    A federal bankruptcy judge has given his approval to a fund set up to settle potential construction defect claims as a Las Vegas home builder, America West Development, works its way out of bankruptcy. The U.S. Trustee had objected to the trust fund's structure, and claimed that it was insufficiently independent from America West. Judge Mike Nakagawa found no legal objections to the trust. The trust will be initially funded from $1.5 million of the $10 million that Lawrence Canarelli will be paying to buy back the company he founded. Construction defect claims against the company could possibly reach $20.9 million. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that the fund "could pick up funding from certain legal claims and insurance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defect Claims Not Covered

    May 10, 2022 —
    The court found that the insured's negligent acts causing damage to only the structure of the home it built were not covered under the CGL policy. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Zaremba Builders II LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36189 (N.D. Ill. March 2, 2022). Zaremba contracted to build a house for the Vrdolyak Trust. After completion of the home, the occupants found many problems, including painting defects such as bubbling and peeling, leaving the basement full of water for months, causing damage to ductwork, framing and piping in the house, etc. The Trust sued and Westfield denied a defense. Westfield filed a declaratory judgment action for a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify. On Westfield's motion for summary judgment, the court determined there was no property damage. Property damage included "physical injury to tangible property." When the alleged damage occurred in the course of a construction project, tangible property had to be property outside the scope of the contract for project. 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

    The Right to Repair Act (Civ.C §895 et seq.) Applies and is the Exclusive Remedy for a Homeowner Alleging Construction Defects

    February 07, 2018 —
    McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (01.18.18) ____ Cal.4th _____ (2018 WL 456728) The California Supreme Court confirmed that the Right to Repair Act (CA Civil Code § 895, et seq. and often referred to by its legislative nomenclature as “SB800”) applies broadly to any action by a residential owner seeking recovery of damages for construction defects, regardless of whether such defects caused property damages or only economic losses. This includes the right in the Act of the builder to attempt repairs prior to the owner filing a lawsuit. Background Homeowners sued builder for construction defects. Included in their causes of action was a cause of action for violation of the Right To Repair Act. The Act requires that before filing litigation, a homeowner must give the builder notice and engage in a nonadversarial prelitigation process which gives the builder a right to repair the defects. The builder asked the court to stay the homeowners’ action so the prelitigaiton process could be undertaken. Rather than give the builder the repair right, the homeowners dismissed the particular cause of action from their case, leaving only other so-called common law and warranty causes of action. The common law claims sought recovery for property damage caused by the defects. The builder nonetheless asked to the Court to stay the action so it could exercise its right to repair. The trial court, relying on Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, denied builder’s request to stay the action. The Liberty Mutual Court concluded that certain common law construction defect claims fell outside the purview of the Act. Builder appealed. The Court of Appeal disagreed with Liberty Mutual, so did not follow it, granted the builder’s request for a stay, and directed that the homeowners afford the builder the right to repair the claimed defects as provided under the Act. The California Supreme Court affirmed, disapproving Liberty Mutual and the subsequent cases relying on it. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Wallace, Smith Currie
    Mr. Wallace may be contacted at swwallace@smithcurrie.com

    Real Estate Developer Convicted in $1.3 Billion Tax Case After Juror Removed

    October 17, 2023 —
    A real estate developer was convicted for promoting $1.3 billion in fraudulent tax deductions after a judge removed a deliberating juror who told the judge she was “standing up for White people.” Jack Fisher was found guilty Friday in Atlanta federal court of selling tax deductions to wealthy individuals using so-called syndicated conservation easements, which offer tax breaks for the promise to avoid developing land. Prosecutors said Fisher relied on exaggerated appraisals and backdated documents in the scheme, which earned him tens of millions of dollars. Jurors also convicted a lawyer who worked with Fisher, James Sinnott. Attorneys for Fisher and Sinnott didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The nine-week trial nearly came undone by conflicts over race and class within the jury, which began deliberating on Sept. 14. Last week, jurors told US District Judge Timothy Batten they were “hopelessly hung.” Jurors also complained that Juror 26, a White woman, refused to deliberate. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Voreacos, Bloomberg

    California Supreme Court Declines Request to Expand Exceptions to Privette Doctrine for Known Hazards

    January 17, 2022 —
    First things first. Happy New Year! Hope you had a good one. To start things off in the new year we’ve got an employment-related case for you – Gonzalez v. Mathis, 12 Cal.5th 29 (2021) – a California Supreme Court case involving the Privette Doctrine. For those not familiar with the Privette Doctrine, the Privette Doctrine is named after the case Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689 (1993), which held that project owners and higher-tiered contractors are not liable for workplace injuries sustained by employees of lower-tiered contractors. Since then, courts have carved out a few exceptions to the Privette Doctrine including the “retained control exception” (also known as the Hooker exception – that’s the name of the case not the occupation of the injured worker) whereby a “hirer,” that is, the higher-tiered party who hired the lower-tiered party whose employee is injured, can be held liable if the hirer: (1) retains control over any part of the lower-tiered party’s work; and (2) negligently exercises that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the worker’s injury. Another exception is the “concealed hazard exception” (also known as the Kinsman exception) whereby a hirer can be held liable if: (1) the hirer knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard on the property that the lower-tiered contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered; and (2) the hirer railed to warn the lower-tiered contractor of that hazard. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

    August 17, 2011 —

    The New York Times reports that a company paid to inspect concrete at major public works projects in New York has been charged with falsifying results. They had been hired by the city three years ago after their predecessor was found to have falsified results.

    According to the Times, investigators found nothing legitimate in nearly three thousand reports. The owner and five employees of American Standard Testing and Consulting Laboratories have been indicted on twenty-nine counts, including charges under New York’s racketeering law. Prison terms could be up to twenty-five years.

    Prior to the city’s contract with American Standard, the city employed a firm called Testwell. Testwell was found in 2008 to have falsified its test results.

    Read the full story…

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

    No Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims under Kentucky Law

    March 25, 2024 —
    The federal district court determined that the insurer was not obligated to defend construction defect claims under Kentucky law. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Kentuckiana Commercial Concrete, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222674 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 14, 2023). HRB, the owner of an apartment complex, filed an arbitration demand against the general contractor, Doster Commercial Construction, for allegedly doing faulty concrete work in the construction of the apartments. Doster added its concrete subcontrator Kentuckiana Commercial Concrete - and 16 other subcontractors - to the arbitration. Kentuckiana tendered the claim to its insurer, Westfield. Wesfield defended. Doster claimed it was an additional insured under the Westfield policy and also sought coverage. Westfield refused the defend Doster. Westfield argued there was no "occurrence." Westfield then sued both Doster and Kentuckiana in federal court, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend either. Westfield moved for a judgment on the pleadings. 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

    $17B Agreement Streamlines Disney World Development Plans

    July 22, 2024 —
    Walt Disney Parks and Resorts received the green light on $17 billion in development plans in and around Walt Disney World in Orange County, Fla,, garnering approval June 12 from the board of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (CFTOD) for its sprawling capital plan. Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lacey, Engineering News-Record Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of