BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failure
    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


    The Importance of Retrofitting Existing Construction to Meet Sustainability Standards

    Language California Construction Direct Contractors Must Add to Subcontracts Beginning on January 1, 2022, Per Senate Bill 727

    Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update

    He's the Top U.S. Mortgage Salesman. His Daughter Isn't Buying It

    Illinois Supreme Court Holds That the Implied Warranty of Habitability Does Not Extend to Subcontractors

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Sub-Contractor

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment Based Upon Vandalism Exclusion

    How Long is Your Construction Warranty?

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Business Interruption Claim Denied

    Feds OK $9B Houston Highway Project After Two-Year Pause

    Fire Tests Inspire More Robust Timber Product Standard

    Federal Court Holds that Demolition Exclusion Does Not Apply and Carrier Has Duty to Defend Additional Insureds

    New Iowa Law Revises Construction Defects Statute of Repose

    Significant Issues Test Applies to Fraudulent Claims to Determine Attorney’s Fees

    No Coverage for Collapse of Building

    Indiana Appellate Court Allows Third-Party Spoliation Claim to Proceed

    Crime Lab Beset by Ventilation Issues

    Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House

    4 Lessons Contractors Can Learn From The COVID-19 Crisis

    Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner

    California Supreme Court Declines to Create Exception to Privette Doctrine for “Known Hazards”

    Three lawyers from Haight were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition

    Housing Prices Up through Most of Country

    It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane . . . No, It’s a Drone. Long Awaited FAA Drone Regulations Finally Take Flight

    Scotiabank Is Cautious on Canada Housing as RBC, BMO Seek Action

    CDJ’s #10 Topic of the Year: Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216.

    Florida Chinese drywall, pollution exclusion, “your work” exclusion, and “sistership” exclusion.

    Courts Take Another Swipe at the Implied Warranty of the Plans and Specifications

    Construction Defects Are Not An Occurrence Under New York, New Jersey Law

    Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses Waiver and Estoppel in Context of Suit Limitation Provision in Property Policy

    It’s Time to Include PFAS in Every Property Related Release

    The Treasures Inside Notre Dame Cathedral

    The Impact of the IIJA and Amended Buy American Act on the Construction Industry

    Corps Releases Final Report on $29B Texas Gulf Coast Hurricane Defense Plan

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

    District Court's Ruling Affirmed in TCD v American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

    Reminder: Your Accounting and Other Records Matter

    VinFast Breaks Ground in North Carolina on its Promised $4B EV Plant

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case Denied

    Civil RICO Case Against Johnny Doc Is Challenging

    US Court Questions 102-Mile Transmission Project Over River Crossing

    Big League Dreams a Nightmare for Town

    Building Permits Hit Five-Year High

    OSHA/VOSH Roundup

    Why’d You Have To Say That?

    Eleven Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2023 U.S. News Best Lawyers in Multiple Practice Areas

    Miller Act Claim for Unsigned Change Orders

    The Best Laid Plans: Contingency in a Construction Contract

    New EPA Regulation for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

    Exploring Architects’ Perspectives on AI: A Survey of Fears and Hopes
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Fairfield's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Breach of Contract Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect Claim

    March 19, 2024 —
    The court determined the policy's breach of contract exclusion precluded coverage for a claim against the general contractor insured for construction defects. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. McAtamncy, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 497 (N. D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2024). McAtamney, a general contractor dong business as Kilrea Construction, was hired by Jeffrey Horowitz for a home-renovation project. After completion of the project, Horowitz discovered defects in the work. He filed a complaint alleging that Kilrea breached obligations to construct and complete the work in an expeditious and workmanlike manner, free from any faults and defects. He brought claims for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, negligence, neglignet supervision, and declaratory relief. Kilrea's insurer, Mt. Hawley, agreed to defend, but reserved the right to later deny coverage for any uncovered claims. The breach of contract exclusion provided there was no duty to defend a claim for property damage arising from breach of an express or implied contract or warranty. 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

    Biden Administration Focus on Environmental Justice Raises Questions for Industry

    March 22, 2021 —
    The Biden Administration has left no doubt that it intends to prioritize environmental justice (EJ) in implementing energy and environmental policy. While EJ is not new – in fact, President Clinton signed the first EJ Executive Order (EO 12898) in 1994 – the new Administration’s plan to expand the concept to include “climate justice” and “health equity” is both novel and undefined. Similar to actions taken on climate change (see our previous alert from January 28), President Biden has announced plans for elevating EJ by designating new Cabinet level offices, intensifying enforcement, and advocating for Congressional action. Given the likelihood of serious impacts from these sweeping changes, industry will need to step up engagement as these concepts are integrated into regulatory decisions and U.S. positions globally. Authority for addressing injustice caused by environmental pollution that disproportionately affects certain communities is found in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act imposed a responsibility on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) to ensure that its funds are not being used to subsidize discrimination, based on race, color, or national origin, making EPA’s Office of Civil Rights responsible for the investigation and enforcement of Title VI within the Agency. President Clinton relied on this authority in signing EO 12898, which directed federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and, going beyond the protections covered by Title VI, low-income populations. Reprinted courtesy of Karen C. Bennett, Lewis Brisbois, Jane C. Luxton, Lewis Brisbois, Rose Quam-Wickham, Lewis Brisbois and William J. Walsh, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Quam-Wickham may be contacted at Rose.QuamWickham@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Walsh may be contacted at William.Walsh@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Assessing Defective Design Liability on Federal Design-Build Projects

    March 22, 2021 —
    A common misconception by many government officials is that a design-builder is always responsible for every design error or omission on a design-build project. This article examines the actual liability standard applied by the courts and boards of contract appeals when a design defect arises on a federal design-build project. Background: Design-Build Contracts and the Spearin Doctrine Design-build contracts combine the design and construction elements of a construction project into one contract. Design-build contracts often include two types of specifications: design and performance. Design specifications may set forth various parameters, such as precise measurements, tolerances, and materials. In doing so, the specifications create a fixed “roadmap” governing a contractor’s performance of the project. Performance specifications, on the other hand, set forth “operational characteristics” to achieve a particular objective or standard, but generally leave the details to the contractor. Reprinted courtesy of Dirk Haire, Fox Rothschild LLP, Adam Hamilton, Fox Rothschild LLP and Dana Molinari, Fox Rothschild LLP Mr. Haire may be contacted at dhaire@foxrothschild.com Mr. Hamilton may be contacted at ahamilton@foxrothschild.com Ms. Molinari may be contacted at dmolinari@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Groundbreaking on New Boulder Neighborhood

    November 20, 2013 —
    A new ten-acre neighborhood is springing up in northeast Boulder, Kalmia38. The development is being built by Markel Homes Construction Co. and Coast to Coast Residential Development. The first homes should be ready for residents by the second quarter of 2014, with building continuing on the project for about three years. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    National Coalition to Provide Boost for Building Performance Standards

    March 14, 2022 —
    Energy efficiency advocates are hopeful that a new Biden administration coalition to promote and strengthen building performance standards could accelerate federal, state and local efforts to reduce carbon emissions from buildings. Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Appeals Court Affirms Carrier’s Duty to Pay Costs Taxed Against Insured in Construction Defect Suit

    November 03, 2016 —
    One of the key reasons for builders to maintain liability insurance is to cover the cost of hiring defense counsel and paying litigation costs in the event of a construction defect lawsuit. If a builder loses a lawsuit, it will typically be responsible for paying the plaintiff’s litigation costs. Today, the Colorado Court of Appeals clarified that the “supplementary payments” section of a standard Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policy covers such costs, even if the carrier has reserved the right to dispute whether it has a duty to indemnify the actual damages awarded. This may seem counter-intuitive, insofar as a carrier may owe costs even if it does not cover the underlying loss, but the court’s decision is consistent with the plain language of the CGL form that most carriers use. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law Firm Mr. Witt may be contacted at his website www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Federal Court Reiterates Broad Duty to Defend in Additional Insured Cases

    April 22, 2024 —
    In the recent case of Travelers Indem. Co. of Am. v. Accredited Sur. & Cas. Co., No. 21-CV-7189 (FB) (JRC), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44634 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2024), the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York had occasion to consider an additional insured tender on behalf of a prime contractor, Archstone, to a subcontractor, Topline, who was named as a direct defendant in a New York labor law case. Even though Topline’s carrier put forth evidence that Topline was not negligent, the court held, under New York’s broad duty to defend, that Topline’s carrier owed a duty to defend the prime contractor. Initially, the court was satisfied that a purchase order, signed only by Topline and not Archstone, was binding on Topline. That purchase order specified that Topline agreed to name Archstone as an additional insured. With respect to the duty to defend, the court found that it was enough that the underlying plaintiff alleged that all defendants, including Topline, were negligent in permitting a ladder that plaintiff was on to remain in a defective condition and in failing to foresee the existence of a hazard from the condition of the subject ladder. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

    Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent

    January 08, 2024 —
    On November 30, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion that overturned precedent in Illinois regarding whether faulty workmanship that only caused damage to the insured’s own work constituted “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under Illinois law. In Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, 2023 IL 129087, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether Acuity, a mutual insurance company, had a duty to defend its additional insured, M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC (M/I Homes), under a subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy in connection with an underlying lawsuit brought by a townhome owners’ association for breach of contract and breach of an implied warranty of habitability. The Cook County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Acuity finding no duty to defend because the underlying complaint did not allege “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the initial grant of coverage of the insurance policy. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that Acuity owed M/I Homes a duty to defend. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, in part, holding construction defects to the general contractor’s own work may constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the standard CGL Policy. This is significant as it overrules prior Illinois precedent finding that repair or replacement of the insured’s defective work does not satisfy the initial grant of coverage of a CGL Policy. By way of background, the underlying litigation stems from alleged construction defects in a residential townhome development in the village of Hanover Park, Illinois. The townhome owners’ association, through its board of directors (the Association) subsequently filed an action on behalf of the townhome owners for breach of contract and breach of the implied warranty of habitability against M/I Homes as the general contractor and successor developer/seller of the townhomes. The Association alleged that M/I Homes’ subcontractors caused construction defects by using defective materials, conducting faulty workmanship, and failing to comply with applicable building codes. As a result, “[t]he [d]efects caused physical injury to the [t]ownhomes (i.e. altered the exterior’s appearance, shape, color or other material dimension) after construction of the [t]ownhome[ ] was completed from repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions.” The defects included “leakage and/or uncontrolled water and/or moisture in locations in the buildings where it was not intended or expected.” The Association alleged that the “[d]efects have caused substantial damage to the [t]ownhomes and damage to other property.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com