BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut slope failure 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


    Auditor: Prematurely Awarded Contracts Increased Honolulu Rail Cost by $354M

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Best Lawyers®

    World’s Biggest Crane Gets to Work at British Nuclear Plant

    North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage,” Allocation and Exhaustion-Related Issues Arising Out of Benzene-Related Claims

    Court Reminds Insurer that the Mere Possibility Of Coverage at the Time of Tender Triggers a Duty to Defend in a Defect Action

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    Courts Favor Arbitration in Two Recent Construction Dispute Cases

    Staying the Course, Texas Supreme Court Rejects Insurer’s Argument for Exception to Eight-Corners Rule in Determining Duty to Defend

    Builders Arrested after Building Collapses in India

    Construction Defects Lead to “A Pretty Shocking Sight”

    Designers “Airpocalyspe” Creations

    Scientists found a way to make Cement Greener

    Is the Sky Actually Falling (on Green Building)?

    Mixing Concrete, Like Baking a Cake, is Fraught with Problems When the Recipe is Not Followed

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Sub-Contracted Electrical Company

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Tear Down This Wall!”

    ASCE Statement on House Failure to Pass the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    ‘Hallelujah,’ House Finally Approves $1T Infrastructure Funding Package

    How a Robot-Built Habitat on Mars Could Change Construction on Earth

    Building Resiliency: Withstanding Wildfires and Other Natural Disasters

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

    Project-Specific Policies and Products-Completed Operations Hazard Extensions

    The Future of Pandemic Coverage for Real Estate Owners and Developers

    Congratulations 2024 DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    COVID-19 Response: California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board Implements Sweeping New Regulations to Prevent COVID-19 in the Workplace

    Lost Rental Income not a Construction Defect

    Labor Intensive

    Mixed Reality for Construction: Applicability and Reality

    White and Williams Obtains Reversal on Appeal of $2.5 Million Verdict Against Electric Utility Company

    Proposed Law Protecting Tenants Amended: AB 828 Updated

    No Collapse Coverage Where Policy's Collapse Provisions Deleted

    Named Insured’s Liability Found Irrelevant to Additional Insured’s Coverage Under a Landlords and Lessors Additional Insured Endorsement

    COVID-19 Damages and Time Recovery: Contract Checklist and Analysis

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Asbestos Exclusion in Alleged Failure to Disclose Case

    Insured's Remand of Bad Faith Action Granted

    2016 Updates to CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Retail Leasing Practice Books Now Available

    New Mexico Adopts Right to Repair Act

    Axa Buys London Pinnacle Site for Redesigned Skyscraper

    Locals Concerns over Taylor Swift’s Seawall Misdirected

    COVID-19 Response: Essential Business Operations: a High-Stakes Question Under Proliferating “Stay at Home” Orders

    Who Will Pay for San Francisco's $750 Million Tilting Tower?

    D.R. Horton Profit Beats Estimates as Home Sales Jumped

    Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Coverage Action Arising out of a Claim for Personal Injury

    Triable Issue of Fact Exists as to Insurer’s Obligation to Provide Coverage Under Occurrence Policy

    Commercial Real Estate in 2023: A Snapshot

    Submitting Claims on Government Projects Can Be Tricky

    Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

    Nebraska Joins the Ranks—No CGL Coverage for Faulty Work

    Make Your Business Great Again: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article
    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

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case Denied

    November 10, 2016 —
    The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking to establish it did not breach the policy when denying coverage for the collapse of basement walls. Belz v. Peerless Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118900 (D. Conn. Sept. 2, 2016). The Belzes purchased their home in 2001. Prior to the purchase, they were aware of notable cracking in the basement walls. An engineer was hired to inspect the cracking and determined the cracks did not threaten the structural integrity of the home. 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

    What ENR.com Construction News Gained the Most Views

    January 09, 2023 —
    As the construction industry continued its ongoing recovery from the global pandemic in 2022, it also faced a number of formidable challenges—including staffing gaps, materials shortages, supply chain delays and the ongoing specter of inflation. Throughout the year, ENR editors reported on how these issues—and many more—were impacting the sector and how it responded. Reprinted courtesy of C.J. Schexnayder, Engineering News-Record Mr. Schexnayder may be contacted at schexnayderc@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Eleventh Circuit Affirms Jury Verdict on Covered Property Loss

    September 06, 2023 —
    The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a motion for a new trial after the jury determined the insurer owed policy benefits for hurricane damage to the insured's property. AM Grand Court Lakes LLC v. Rockhill Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. App. 13902 (11th Cir. June 5, 2023). AM Grand owned a group of buildings that were operated as an assisted living facility. The facility comprised five buildings, each of which was five stories tall. Hurricane Irma caused damage to the property. AM Grand hired a public aduster, Five Star Claims Adjustoing, to assist with its claim. Five Star concluded that the roofs of all five buildings had been damaged in the hurricane and needed to be replaced. The estimated cost was approximately $1,200,000 to replace all the roofs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Traub may be contacted at rtraub@tlsslaw.com

    New Jersey Legislation Would Bar Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause in Homeowners' Policies

    June 08, 2020 —
    A bill prohibiting the use of anti-concurrent causation clauses in homeowners' insurance policies has been introduced before the New Jersey legislature. The bill is here. Under an anti-concurrent causation clause, the policy bars coverage if two perils (i.e., wind and water damage) contribute to a loss and one peril is excluded from coverage. For example, wind damage alone may be covered, while water damage is excluded. If both wind and water contribute to the loss, regardless of the degree to which each peril contributes, the anti-concurrent causation clause would bar coverage. New Jersey S 217 states,
    An insurer authorized to transact the business of homeowners insurance in this state shall not exclude coverage in a homeowners insurance policy for loss or damage caused by a peril insured against under the terms of the policy on the grounds that the loss or damage occurred concurrently or in any sequence with a peril not insured against under the terms of the policy. Any such provision to exclude coverage shall be void and unenforceable.
    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

    Rio Olympic Infrastructure Costs of $2.3 Billion Are Set to Rise

    January 31, 2014 —
    Brazilian authorities announced 5.6 billion reais ($2.3 billion) will be spent on infrastructure directly related to the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games and those costs will rise as projects are added. Yesterday’s announcement comes months behind schedule, and after pressure on public bodies to reveal exactly how much it will cost for Rio to be the first South American city to host the quadrennial showpiece. Delays and cost overruns to several projects related to this year’s soccer World Cup have sharpened the focus on the Olympics. “We are committed to being on schedule,” Sports Minister Aldo Rebelo said at a press conference in Rio to announce the spending plans. “It is the first time we have a consortium of three levels of government. It is in an effort to ensure the success and execution of all the commitments to deliver the Olympics in Rio in 2016.” Mr. Panja may be contacted at tpanja@bloomberg.net and Mr. Biller may be contacted at dbiller1@bloomberg.net. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tariq Panja and David Biller, Bloomberg

    NJ Court Reaffirms Rule Against Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims and Finds Fraud Claims Inherently Intentional

    September 20, 2021 —
    Awarding summary judgment to an insurer under both liability and directors & officers (D&O) coverage parts, a New Jersey trial court reaffirmed the principle that claims of defective workmanship without resulting “property damage” are not covered under a general liability policy, and further dismissed claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, finding that such claims were inherently intentional and do not state a covered “occurrence.” In Velez v. AR Management Company, et al., 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1675 (Law Div. Bergen Co. Aug. 10, 2021), owners of a condominium unit rebuilt after a fire sued the condominium association, several association board members, the association’s property management company and the general contractor for the reconstruction work. The owners’ suit alleged faulty workmanship and incomplete repairs. In addition, the owners asserted fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the management company, alleging conflicts of interest and self-dealing between the management company and the general contractor, which had common ownership. In a third-party complaint, the management company sought coverage from the condo association’s liability and D&O insurer. The court dismissed the D&O coverage claim, noting that the management company was not a director or officer or otherwise entitled to insured status for the D&O coverage part. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Frank J. Perch, III, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Perch may be contacted at perchf@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Industry Standard and Sole Negligence Defenses Can’t Fix a Defect

    June 14, 2021 —
    Strict products liability cases have been the subject of much fluctuation in the Pennsylvania courts over the last few years. Utilizing hope created by the courts in recent strict liability cases, defendants have tried to revive defenses based on meeting industry standards and the plaintiff’s contributory negligence. Recently, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania tempered that hope with limitations of how far strict liability defenses can extend. In Sullivan v. Werner Co., No. 3086 EDA 2019, 2021 Pa. Super. LEXIS 210, an appellate panel of the Superior Court reviewed the lower court’s decision to exclude evidence of industry standards and of the plaintiff’s negligence in a trial that resulted in a $2.5 million verdict for the plaintiff. Upholding the decision of the lower court, the court found that the proffered evidence was within the discretion of the court to exclude. In Sullivan, Michael Sullivan (Sullivan) was working as a union carpenter at a renovation project for a local school. He and his apprentice were installing exterior sheathing to the outdoor walls. In order to install the sheathing, Sullivan had to use a scaffold. He put together a new SRS-72 scaffold manufactured by Werner Company (Werner) that his foreman bought at Lowe’s Companies, Inc. (Lowe’s) and used the scaffold during the course of his work. While on the scaffold, Sullivan fell through and crashed to the ground. He suffered permanent injuries as a result of the incident. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

    California Mediation Confidentiality May Apply to Third Party “Participants” Retained to Provide Analysis

    November 02, 2017 —
    California Evidence Code section 1119 governs the general admissibility of oral and written communications generated during the mediation process. Section 1119(a) provides that “[n]o evidence of anything said or any admission made for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation . . . is admissible or subject to discovery, and disclosure of the evidence shall not be compelled, in any . . . civil action . . . .” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(a) (emphasis added). Similarly, section 1119(b) bars discovery or admission in evidence of any “writing . . . prepared for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation . . . .” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(b) (emphasis added). Finally, section 1119(c) provides that “[a]ll communications, negotiations, or settlement discussions by and between participants in the course of a mediation . . . shall remain confidential.” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(c) (emphasis added). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com