BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut building expert
    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


    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives “Tier 1” Ranking by U.S. News and World Reports

    New York State Trial Court: Non-Cumulation Provision in Excess Policies Mandates “All Sums” Allocation

    Does Stricter Decertification Mean More “Leedigation?”

    Depreciation of Labor in Calculating Actual Cash Value Against Public Policy

    Predicting the Future of Texas’s Grid Is a Texas-Sized Challenge

    Last Parcel of Rancho del Oro Masterplan Purchased by Cornerstone Communties

    Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict

    A Homeowner’s Subsequent Action is Barred as a Matter of Law by way of a Prior “Right to Repair Act” Claim Resolved by Cash Settlement for Waiver of all Known or Unknown Claims

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 7: How to Successfully Prepare, Submit and Negotiate the Claim

    “Source of Duty,” Tort, and Contract, Oh My!

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

    First Circuit Rejects Insurer’s “Insupportable” Duty-to-Cooperate Defense in Arson Coverage Suit

    Appraisers’ Failure to Perform Assessment of Property’s Existence or Damage is Reversible Error

    The Fifth Circuit, Applying Texas Law, Strikes Down Auto Exclusion

    Contractors: Beware the Subordination Clause

    Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

    Prevailing Parties Entitled to Contractual Attorneys’ Fees Under California CCP §1717 Notwithstanding Declaration That Contract is Void Under California Government Code §1090

    Will AI Completely Transform Our Use of Computers?

    Best U.S. Home Sales Since 2007 Show Momentum in Housing Market

    California Assembly Passes Expedited Dam Safety for Silicon Valley Act

    Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners

    Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

    Renee Zellweger Selling Connecticut Country Home

    Massachusetts SJC Clarifies “Strict Compliance” Standard in Construction Contracts

    Nuclear Energy Gets a Much-Needed Boost

    Best Lawyers Honors 48 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Recognizes Four Partners as 'Lawyers of the Year'

    Digital Twins – Interview with Cristina Savian

    Claims Against Broker Dismissed

    Maybe Supervising Qualifies as Labor After All

    Crumbling Roadways Add Costs to Economy, White House Says

    Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review Regarding Necessary Parties in Lien Foreclosure Actions

    After 15 Years, Settlement Arrested at San Francisco's Millennium Tower

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

    The Little Ice Age and Delay Claims

    Proposition 65: OEHHA to Consider Adding and Delisting Certain Chemicals of Concern

    White and Williams Recognized by BTI Consulting Group for Client Service

    Berkeley Researchers Look to Ancient Rome for Greener Concrete

    Poor Record Keeping = Going to the Poor House (or, why project documentation matters)

    Putting 3D First, a Model Bridge Rises in Norway

    Will They Blow It Up?

    Whose Employee is it Anyway?: Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Injured Subcontractor's Claim Based on Modified Employer's Liability Exclusion

    U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Maritime Charters and the Specter of a New Permitting Regime

    Manhattan Developer Breaks Ground on $520 Million Project

    English v. RKK. . . The Saga Continues

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces Partner John Van Vlear Named to Board Of Groundwater Resources Association Of California

    It’s a Jolly Time of the Year: 5 Tips for Dealing with Construction Labor Issues During the Holidays

    Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect, Bad Faith Claims

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

    New Insurance Case: Owners'​ Insurance Barred in Reimbursement Action against Tenant
    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

    Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear

    March 07, 2011 —

    In the past year a number of state and federal courts have rendered a number of conflicting decisions that promise to alter or perhaps shift entirely the paradigm, of how builders manage risk.

    According to a report today by Dave Lenckus in Property Casualty 360 “Nine state and federal courts and one state legislature over the past year have addressed whether a construction defect a defective product or faulty workmanship is fortuitous and therefore an occurrence under the commercial general liability insurance policy. Four jurisdictions determined it is; three said no; two ruled that a construction defect that causes consequential damage to property other than the work product is an occurrence; and one federal court contributed its conflicting case law that has developed in Oregon since its high court ruled in 2000 that a construction defect is not an occurrence”.

    The article strongly suggests that in the absence of a clear consensus over what the recent rulings mean for builders and contractors coverage disputes will intensify and continue to proliferate.

    Doing this on a state-by-state basis has caused a lot of confusion among buyers and sellers, said Jeffrey A. Segall, a Tampa-based senior vice president and the Florida Construction Practice leader at Willis of Florida, a unit of Willis Group Holdings.

    Read Full Story...

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

    Montana Trial Court Holds That Youths Have Standing to Bring Constitutional Claims Against State Government For Alleged Climate Change-Related Harms

    September 18, 2023 —
    On August 14, 2023, in a “landmark” ruling, a Montana state court held that youth plaintiffs had standing to assert constitutional claims against the State of Montana, its governor and state agencies for “ignoring” the impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on climate change. Held v. State of Montana, Cause No. CDV-020-307 (1st Judicial Dist. Ct., Lewis & Clark Cty., Mt.). Agreeing with the plaintiffs, the court concluded that a limitation in the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which prohibited the state from considering climate impacts when issuing permits for energy projects, violated the plaintiffs’ right under the state constitution to a “clean and healthful environment.” MEPA, enacted in 1971, states that its purposes include “provid[ing] for the adequate review of state actions in order to ensure that . . . environmental attributes are fully considered by the legislature in enacting laws to fulfill constitutional obligations . . . .” In 2011, the legislature amended the statute to curtail the scope of environmental reviews. Under the so-called MEPA limitation, Montana agencies cannot consider “an evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate in the state or beyond the state’s borders.” Mont. Code Ann. § 75-1-201(2)(a). In 2023, the legislature added a provision that eliminated equitable remedies (i.e., the ability to “vacate, void, or delay a lease, permit, license, certificate, authorization, or other entitlement or authority”) for litigants who “claim that [an] environmental review is inadequate based in whole or in part upon greenhouse gas emissions and impacts to the climate in Montana or beyond Montana’s borders . . . .” Id. § 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii). Reprinted courtesy of Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP and Julia Castanzo, White and Williams LLP Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Castanzo may be contacted at castanzoj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado Rejects Bill to Shorten Statute of Repose

    May 07, 2015 —
    The House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs committee voted today to postpone Senate Bill 15-091 indefinitely, effectively killing the bill for the 2015 session. As originally drafted, the bill would have given Colorado the shortest statute of repose in the United States. Senate amendments softened the impact of the bill somewhat, but it still would have reduced the amount of time that the owners of single-family homes would have to discover construction defects. Proponents argued that this was necessary because Colorado’s harsh weather conditions make it difficult for construction to last longer than five years. Opponents countered that construction defect laws only provide relief when a builder has violated a code or standard, which is unrelated to the expected lifespan of a product. One of the Representatives noted that states like Alaska have much harsher weather patterns yet allow homeowners to bring claims up to ten years after construction is complete. Another questioned whether the bill would do anything to encourage affordable housing, a topic that has generated substantial media attention in recent months. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt
    Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.wittlawfirm.net

    Billionaire Behind Victoria’s Secret Built His Version of the American Heartland

    June 25, 2019 —
    Beyond emerald-green golf links, over snow-white fences, and past tree-lined cul-de-sacs rises the American fantasyland of billionaire Les Wexner. Here in the middle of Ohio, of all places, Wexner—the man behind Victoria’s Secret and its push-up-bra notions of female beauty—has brought to life his singular vision of the heartland. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sophie Alexander, Bloomberg

    Supreme Court of California Rules That Trial Court Lacking Subject Matter Jurisdiction May Properly Grant Anti-SLAPP Motion on That Basis, and Award Attorney’s Fees

    January 19, 2017 —
    In Barry v. The State Bar of California (No. S214058 – 1/5/2017), the California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of the State Bar of California’s (“State Bar”) underlying anti-SLAPP motion (Code of Civil Procedure §425.16) on the grounds that plaintiff Patricia Barry (“Barry”), an attorney, had failed to show a probability of prevailing because, among other reasons, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Barry’s claims. The Court confirmed that the absence of subject matter jurisdiction did not prevent a trial court from basing a decision to grant an anti-SLAPP motion on that ground, or to award the prevailing defendant its attorney’s fees. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurers' Motion to Determine Lack of Occurrence Fails

    August 19, 2024 —
    The federal district court, interpreting Massachusetts law, found there were genuine issues of fact as to whether the insured's mixing of biodiesel with home heating fuel was an occurrence. United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Peterson's Oil Serv., Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106980 (D. Mass. June 17, 2024). Homeowners sued Peterson's Oil Service, alleging that Peterson sold them fuel for home heating which contained more that 5% biodiesel. The homeowners further alleged that fuel containing more than 5% biodiesel did not meet industry standards and caued damage to their home heating equipment. Peterson allegedly did not fully disclose the presence of biodiesel in their fuel, despite knowing the risk posed by high-biodiesel blended fuel. The insurers, United States Fire Insurance Company and The North River Insurance Company, defended Peterson under a reservation of rights. United States Fire issued priomary policies with limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 as a general aggregate limit. An endorsement titled "Limited Coverage - Failure to Supply" limited the amount covered for "property damage arising out of the failure of any insured to adequately supply gas, oil, water, electricty or steam" to $250,000. North River issued umbrella policies with additional coverage in the amount of $15,000,000 per occurrnce and in the aggregate if property damage was caused by an occurrence. The umbrella policies also contained a "Failure to Supply Exclusion" which excluded coverage for "property damage arising out of the failure of an insured to adequately supply gas, oil, water, electricty or steam." 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

    Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

    September 30, 2011 —

    After seeing their $1 million jury award overturned on appeal by a judge who called the award “against the weight of evidence and likely due to misapprehension, confusion or passion,” Kathryn and Christian Culley are seeking to have him removed from the case. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has rejected their claim.

    The Culleys claim that Judge Thomas R. Murtagh’s decision was influence by him membership in the Andover Country Club which is represented by the opposing counsel in their construction defect case. Justice Margot G. Botsford had denied the Culley’s request, ruling that they had other remedies available to them.

    The SJC noted in their ruling that if the Culleys are alleging judicial misconduct a request must be made to the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Their lawyer plans to file a new motion for recusal with the SJC.

    Read the full story…

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

    Engineer and CNA Dispute Claim Over Dual 2014 Bridge Failures

    December 15, 2016 —
    An engineering company whose error led to two pedestrian bridge collapses in North Carolina in 2014 that left one worker dead and caused costly damage contends it is being unfairly denied $2 million in potential insurance coverage by its carrier due to what it claims is an “ambiguous” wording of the policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com