BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction code 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


    San Francisco House that Collapsed Not Built to Plan

    Supreme Court Holds That Prevailing Wage Statute is Constitutional

    Endorsements Preclude Coverage for Alleged Faulty Workmanship

    The Role of Code Officials in the Design-Build Process

    Resilience: Transforming the Energy Sector – Navigating Land Issues in Solar and Storage Projects | Episode 3 (11.14.24)

    Warranty Reform Legislation for Condominiums – Unfair Practices used by Developers and Builders to avoid Warranty Responsibility for Construction Defects in Newly Constructed Condominiums

    2021 California Construction Law Update

    Overtime! – When the Statute of Limitations Isn’t Game Over For Your Claim

    Is the Removal and Replacement of Nonconforming Work Economically Wasteful?

    Being deposed—not just for dictators! Depositions in the construction lawsuit (Law & Order: Hard Hat files Part 5)

    Glendale City Council Approves Tohono O’odham Nation Casino

    New York Nonprofit Starts Anti-Scaffold Law Video Series

    Time is Money. Unless You’re an Insurance Company

    Slip and Fall Claim from Standing Water in Parking Garage

    Florida’s Citizens Property Insurance May Be Immune From Bad Faith, But Is Not Immune From Consequential Damages

    Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor's Employee

    Insured's Testimony On Expectation of Coverage Deemed Harmless

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

    CA Senate Report States Caltrans ‘Gagged and Banished’ its Critics

    Scarce Cemetery Space Creates Prices to Die For: Cities

    Your Contract is a Hodgepodge of Conflicting Proposals

    Tennessee High Court Excludes Labor Costs from Insurer’s Actual Cash Value Depreciation Calculations

    Extreme Heat, Smoke Should Get US Disaster Label, Groups Say

    Rescission of Policy for Misrepresentation in Application Reversed

    Effective Zoning Reform Isn’t as Simple as It Seems

    PSA: Virginia Repeals Its Permanent COVID-19 Safety Standard

    No Coverage for Defects in Subcontrator's Own Work

    BWB&O Expands to North San Diego

    Update: Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    BHA has a Nice Swing Donates to CDCCF

    Couple Claims ADA Renovation Lead to Construction Defects

    Fraudster Sells 24-Bedroom ‘King’s Speech’ London Mansion

    The Cost of Overlooking Jury Fees

    Jersey Shore Town Trying Not to Lose the Man vs. Nature Fight on its Eroded Beaches

    Is the Issuance of a City Use Permit Referable? Not When It Is an Administrative Act

    Chambers USA Names Peckar & Abramson to Band 1 Level in Construction Law; 29 P&A Lawyers Recognized as Leading Attorneys; Six Regions and Government Contracts Practice Recognized

    Got Licensing Questions? CSLB Licensing Workshop November 17th and December 15th

    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

    Update Regarding New York’s New Registration Requirement for Contractors and Subcontractors Performing Public Works and Covered Private Projects

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: KATE GOLDEN

    Corps, State Agencies Prep for Flood Risks From California Snowmelt Runoff

    Contracts and Fraud Don’t Mix (Even for Lawyers!)

    The Problem with One Year Warranties

    ‘The Ground Just Gave Out’: How a Storm’s Fury Ravaged Asheville

    The Prolonged Effects on Commercial Property From Extreme Weather

    Commonwealth Court Strikes Blow to Philly Window and Door Ordinance

    How New York City Plans to Soak Up the Rain

    When is a “Willful” Violation Willful (or Not) Under California’s Contractor Enforcement Statutes?

    Sacramento Water Works Recognized as a Historic Civil Engineering Landmark

    Kushners Abandon Property Bid as Pressures Mount Over Conflicts
    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

    Insured's Failure to Challenge Trial Court's Application of Exclusion Makes Appeal Futile

    November 15, 2022 —
    The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's granting of summary judgment to the insurer because the appeal failed to challenge the exclusion under which the insurer found no coverage. Sosa v. Auto Club Indemn. Co., 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 6520 (Tex. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2022). Sosa's house was damaged during Hurricane Harry on August 26, 2017. Sosa filed a claim with Auto Club. She reported that two feet of floodwater had entered her home, her roof was missing shingles and was leaking, and she had sustained interior damage. An adjuster estimated the cost to prepare the roof damage was $1,191.96, less that her deductible. Auto Club determined that any remaining damage was caused by flood water, which was expressly excluded from coverage. On November 11, 2020, Sosa filed suit against Auto Club for breach of the policy. Among other things, she argued the adjuster spent minimal time at her home inspecting and was inexperienced. In its answer, Auto Club asserted Sosa's claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations. Sosa then filed an amended complaint and changed the date of the loss from August 26, 2017, to June 28, 2019. 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

    Third Circuit Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Despite Insured’s Expectations

    November 21, 2018 —
    In its recent decision in Frederick Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hall, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31666 (3d Cir. Nov. 8, 2018), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had occasion to consider Pennsylvania’s doctrine of reasonable expectations in the context of a faulty workmanship claim. Hallstone procured a general liability policy from Frederick Mutual to insure its masonry operations. Notably, when purchasing the policy through an insurance broker, Hallstone’s principal stated that he wanted the “maximum” “soup to nuts” coverage for his company. Hallstone was later sued by a customer for alleged defects in its masonry work. While Frederick agreed to provide a defense, it also commenced a lawsuit seeking a judicial declaration that its policy excluded coverage for faulty workmanship. The district court agreed that the business risk exclusions applied, but nevertheless found in favor of Hallstone based on the argument that Hallstone had a reasonable expectation that when applying for an insurance policy affording “soup to nuts” coverage, it this would include coverage for faulty workmanship claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
    Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

    Court Concludes That COVID-19 Losses Can Qualify as “Direct Physical Loss”

    September 28, 2020 —
    In a victory for policyholders, a federal district court found that COVID-19 can cause physical loss under business-interruption policies. In Studio 417, Inc., et al. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Co., No. 20-cv-03127-SRB (W.D. Mo. Aug. 12, 2020), the court rejected the argument often advanced by insurers that “all-risks” property insurance policies require a physical, structural alteration to trigger coverage. This decision shows that, with correct application of policy-interpretation principles and strategic use of pleading and evidence, policyholders can defeat the insurance industry’s “party line” arguments that business-interruption insurance somehow cannot apply to pay for the unprecedented losses businesses are experiencing from COVID-19, public-safety orders, loss of use of business assets, and other governmental edicts. The policyholders in Studio 417 operate hair salons and restaurants asserting claims for business interruption. In suing to enforce their coverage, the policyholders allege that, over the last several months, it is likely that customers, employees, and/or other visitors to the insured properties were infected with COVID-19 and thereby infected the insured properties with the virus. Their complaint asserts that the presence of COVID-19 “renders physical property in their vicinity unsafe and unusable.” Unlike some other complaints seeking to enforce such coverage, it also alleges that the presence of COVID-19 and government “Closure Orders” “caused a direct physical loss or direct physical damage” to their premises “by denying use of and damaging the covered property, and by causing a necessary suspension of operations during a period of restoration.” Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Jorge R. Aviles, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Aviles may be contacted at javiles@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Public Law Center Honors Snell & Wilmer Partner Sean M. Sherlock As Volunteers For Justice Attorney Of The Year

    June 10, 2019 —
    Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce the Public Law Center (PLC) has named Orange County partner Sean M. Sherlock as the 2019 Volunteers for Justice Attorney of the Year. Sherlock donates his time and knowledge to his community through his pro bono work with PLC. From 2015 to earlier this year he headed a team of attorneys who represented an elderly PLC client in danger of losing her mobile home. The client is the primary caregiver for her disabled grandson who survives solely on a fixed income of disability and Social Security, causing her to fall behind on her space rent for her mobile home. In addition to pro bono work, Sherlock is an avid community volunteer, spending his time supporting organizations that have included Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Orange County Coastkeeper, AYSO and the Boy Scouts of America. “One of the most rewarding aspects of being an attorney is being able to obtain justice for the vulnerable and defenseless in our society who would otherwise be unable to navigate our legal system,” said Sherlock. “My relationship with the PLC has given me many opportunities to do some very gratifying work, and it is a real pleasure working with and learning from the excellent staff attorneys at PLC.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com

    Insured's Complaint for Breach of Contract and Bad Faith Adequately Pleads Consequential Damages

    March 27, 2019 —
    The appellate court overturned the trial court's dismissal of the insured's complaint seeking consequential damages. D.K. Prop. Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v, Pa., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 329 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan. 17, 2019). The insured's building began to shift and exhibit structural damage, including cracks, after construction began in an adjoining building. The insured submitted a claim under its commercial insurance policy. The insurer did not pay the claim, nor did it disclaim coverage. The insured sued, alleging breach of contract for failure to pay covered losses under the policy. The second cause of action was for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint also requested consequential damages in connection with each cause of action. The trial court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss the claim for consequential damages. 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

    WSDOT Excludes Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs from Participation Goals

    June 15, 2017 —
    A drastic change has been implemented by the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) to the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) Program in Washington. Effective June 1, 2017, WSDOT has implemented a “waiver” to exclude women-owned DBEs[i] from qualifying toward Condition of Award (“COA”) Goals on federally-funded projects. This move is significant. It will likely result in long-lasting detrimental impacts on the DBE community, women-owned businesses, and the entire construction community in Washington. The construction industry should be in an uproar over this change. Instead, it has largely gone unnoticed (likely because its impacts have not yet been felt). It is a de facto exclusion of women-owned businesses from the DBE program, and the severity of this change cannot be overstated. Under the waiver, women-owned businesses no longer satisfy COA Goals on federally-funded projects (i.e., projects receiving funding from the Federal Highway Administration) advertised after June 1, 2017. Existing contracts are not impacted and may continue to utilize women-owned DBEs to satisfy COA Goals until the project is complete. The waiver is not retroactive. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Perka, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Ms. Perka may be contacted at eperka@ac-lawyers.com

    French Laundry Spices Up COVID-19 Business Interruption Debate

    April 20, 2020 —
    On March 26, 2020, Michelin-rated Napa Valley restaurants, French Laundry and Bouchon Bistro, and their celebrity chef, Thomas Keller, filed the second known coronavirus-related declaratory judgment (DJ) lawsuit by a restaurant. The restaurants filed their DJ against Hartford Fire Insurance Company just seven days after Napa County issued a Shelter at Home Order.1 Chef Keller’s suit comes on the heels of the first such suit by a restaurant seeking to recover business income losses, filed by iconic New Orleans French Quarter restaurant Oceana Grill2 on March 17, just four days after the Louisiana governor issued an order prohibiting gatherings of more than 250 people. As local governments seek to protect their citizens and prevent an onslaught of cases in area hospitals, they are issuing various “stay home,” “shelter at home,” and similar orders to force social distancing and to help flatten the curve of the growth in COVID-19 cases. Restaurants nationwide are especially hard hit by these orders, as many of these orders contain size limitations on gatherings, which have required that restaurants and bars limit capacity (as in the March 13th Louisiana order). Other such orders require non-essential businesses to “cease all activities in the County” (as in the Napa County Shelter at Home order). The Napa County order does not exempt restaurants as “essential businesses,” except when providing food for take-out or delivery. Other orders, still, directly address restaurants and require them to cease allowing public consumption of food and beverages (as in the subsequent, March 17th Louisiana order). Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Ms. McDonald may be contacted at mam@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Generally, What Constitutes A Trade Secret Is A Question of Fact

    February 01, 2021 —
    In construction, contractors maintain competitiveness by compiling, combining, utilizing, or developing proprietary and unique systems. The systems can be from a cost standpoint (determining general conditions or general requirement costs and percentages including percentages for insurance) or can be with respect to certain construction assembly or delegated design components. Such proprietary and unique systems are trade secrets to the contractors and efforts are taken to identify such information as confidential when proposing on a project. Contractors would not want such systems disclosed to others because it would dilute and impact what they believe is valuable and makes them competitive in the marketplace. Florida’s Uniform Trade Secret Act (“FUTSA”) creates a statutory cause of action for the misappropriation of trade secrets. (FUTSA is set forth in Florida Statute s. 688.001 en seq.) FUTSA displaces or “preempts all claims [such as common law claims] based on misappropriation of trade secrets.” Alphamed Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Arriva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 391 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1167 (S.D.Fla. 2005). See also Fla. Stat. s. 688.008. Florida Statute s. 688.002 (found here) defines the terms “trade secret” and “misappropriation.” 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