BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope 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


    Saved By The Statute: The Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Bar Claims Under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law

    “Slow and Steady Doesn’t Always Win the Race” – Applicability of a Statute of Repose on Indemnity/Contribution Claims in New Hampshire

    Breath of Fresh Air

    Homebuilders Opposed to Potential Change to Interest on Construction Defect Expenses

    Landlords Beware: Subordination Agreements

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Reject Collapse Coverage Denied

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

    UK's Biggest Construction Show Bans 'Promo Girls'

    Brazil's Success at Hosting World Cup Bodes Well for Olympics

    Meet Daniel Hall, Assistant Professor at TU Delft

    Premises Liability: Everything You Need to Know

    No Duty to Defend under Homeowner's Policy Where No Occurrence, No Property Damage

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit with Additional Million

    The Small Stuff: Small Claims Court and Limited Civil Court Jurisdictional Limits

    Of Pavement and Pandemic: Liability and Regulatory Hurdles for Taking It Outside

    Traub Lieberman Partners Lisa Rolle, Erin O’Dea, and Nicole Verzillo Win Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

    Insurance Firm Defends against $22 Million Claim

    Toll Brothers Shows how the Affluent Buyer is Driving Up Prices

    Six Inducted into California Homebuilding Hall of Fame

    Instant Hotel Tower, But Is It Safe?

    Finding of No Coverage Overturned Due to Lack of Actual Policy

    Hamptons Home Up for Foreclosure That May Set Record

    Sellers of South Florida Mansion Failed to Disclose Construction Defects

    This Is the Most Remote and Magical Hotel on Earth

    Product Liability Alert: “Sophisticated User” Defense Not Available by Showing Existence of a “Sophisticated Intermediary”

    California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Injured Worker Despite Contractor's Exclusion

    MDL for Claims Against Manufacturers and Distributors of PFAS-Containing AFFFs Focuses Attention on Key Issues

    Tech Focus: Water Tech Getting Smarter

    Self-Storage Magnates Cash In on the Surge in Real Estate

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Based Upon Exclusion for Contractual Assumption of Liability

    Spearin Doctrine 100 Years Old and Still Thriving in the Design-Build Delivery World

    EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    Liquidated Damages: Too High and It’s a Penalty. Too Low and You’re Out of Luck.

    Client Alert: Restaurant Owed Duty of Care to Driver Killed by Third-Party on Street Adjacent to Restaurant Parking Lot

    Hurdles with Triggering a Subcontractor Performance Bond

    House Panel Subpoenas VA Documents on Colorado Project

    Kiewit Hired as EPC for Fire-Damaged Freeport Gas Terminal Fix

    Collapse of Underground Storage Cave Not Covered

    Court Bars Licensed Contractor From Seeking Compensation for Work Performed by Unlicensed Sub

    Become Familiar With Your CGL Policy Exclusions to Ensure You Are Covered: Wardcraft v. EMC.

    Florida County Suspends Impact Fees to Spur Development

    Alabama “occurrence” and subcontractor work exception to the “your completed work” exclusion

    US-Mexico Border Wall Bids Include Tourist Attraction, Solar Panels

    Quick Note: Lis Pendens Bond When Lis Pendens Not Founded On Recorded Instrument Or Statute

    Let’s Give ‘Em Sutton to Talk About: Tennessee Court Enforces Sutton Doctrine

    No Interlocutory Appeals of "Garden-Variety" Contract Disputes

    Exclusion for Construction of Condominiums Includes Faulty Construction of Retaining Wall

    U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor
    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

    Homeowners Sued for Failing to Disclose Defects

    December 30, 2013 —
    The Madison-St. Clair Record reports that a Wisconsin homeowner has sued the former owners of her home, alleging that they failed to disclose a defect. According to the lawsuit, David and Doris Stephens informed Jennifer Davies that a basement window well had previously leaked, but that the problem had been fixed and not recurred in three years. Ms. Davies had problems with the leaks after she moved in. And while the window was the only defect the Stepehenses reported, Ms. Davies found problems with the home’s heating and air conditioning as well. Though she paid only $112,000 for the home, Ms. Davies is suing for $400,000 for the repairs, loss of property value, and the court fees. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Federal Court Rejects Insurer's Argument that Wisconsin Has Adopted the Manifestation Trigger for Property Policy

    April 03, 2013 —
    The federal district court disagreed with the insurer's strident claim that Wisconsin followed the manifestation trigger for deciding coverage under a homeowner's policy. Strauss v. Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 2, 2013). Several years after their house was constructed, the insureds discovered water damage. Chubb denied the claim. The insureds sued. Chubb moved for summary judgment and argued that the loss first manifested many years after its policy expired. Further, Chubb argued that Wisconsin followed the manifestation trigger for first-party property insurance, meaning that only the insurance policy in effect when the loss manifested was required to respond. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    February 02, 2017 —
    Nina Agabian, a retired director of research in global health science at the University of California, bought a 29th-floor apartment in San Francisco’s Millennium Tower in 2010. “It was supposed to be a wonderful building,” she said in January, sitting in a leather chair in the building’s vast, low-lit, owner's-club level. “For many of us, who left our business lives to start our older years, this had become a nice, comfortable place.” The building, which opened in 2008 and was touted as the most luxurious tower in San Francisco, became a beacon of the city’s burgeoning wealth, attracting tech millionaires, venture capitalists, and even the San Francisco 49ers retired quarterback Joe Montana. The 58-story tower's shine faded on May 10, 2016, when Agabian attended a homeowners association meeting and was informed that the building had sunk 16 inches into the earth and tilted over 15 inches at its tip and 2 inches at the base, according to suits filed by residents and the city of San Francisco. “You can imagine how distressed we were to know that, for one, our lifetime investment and savings are at risk,” she said. “And we have no idea whether or not there’s a fix to it, and if there is a fix to it, what it will entail.” Reprinted courtesy of James Tarmy, Bloomberg and Kartikay Mehrotra, Bloomberg Mr. Tarmy may be followed on Twitter @jstarmy Mr. Mehrotra may be followed on Twitter @kartikaym Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Public Policy Prevails: Homebuilders and Homebuyers Cannot Agree to Disclaim Implied Warranty of Habitability in Arizona

    November 01, 2022 —
    In Zambrano v. M & RC II LLC, et al., 2022 Ariz. LEXIS 309, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that a homebuilder and homebuyer could not waive or disclaim the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. While the court would normally enforce a contract between two parties – even if one side made a “bad deal” – they will not do so if the contract’s terms are against public policy. In this case, Tina Zambrano (Zambrano) signed a purchase agreement with the homebuilder to buy a newly built home. The agreement included provisions which expressly disclaimed any implied warranties, including the warranty of habitability and workmanship. After the purchase, Zambrano claimed that there were construction defects within the home, including popped nails in the drywall and issues with the home’s foundation. Zambrano sued the homebuilder for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. The homebuilder moved for summary judgment based on the waivers within the contract and the trial court, agreeing that the waivers applied, dismissed the case. Zambrano appealed and the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court specifically explained that Arizona has a public policy interest in protecting consumers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan Bennett, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Bennett may be contacted at bennettr@whiteandwilliams.com

    California Supreme Court Adopts “Vertical Exhaustion” in the Long-Storied Montrose Environmental Coverage Litigation

    June 08, 2020 —
    On April 6, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued a decision that held a policyholder is entitled to access available excess coverage under any excess policy once it has exhausted directly underlying excess policies for the same policy period in Montrose Chemical Corporation v. the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Supreme Court of California, case number S244737. In its unanimous decision adopting this “vertical exhaustion” requirement, the court rejected the “horizontal exhaustion” rule urged by the policyholder’s excess insurers, under which the policyholder would have been able to access an excess policy only after it had exhausted other policies with lower attachment points from every policy period in which the environmental damage resulting in liability occurred. In 1990, Montrose sought coverage under primary policies and multiple layers of excess policies issued for periods from 1961 through 1985 for environmental damage liabilities arising from its production of insecticide in the Los Angeles area between 1947 and 1982. The ongoing dispute currently arises out of Montrose’s Fifth Amended Complaint which was filed in 2015 seeking declarations concerning exhaustion and the manner in which Montrose may allocate its liabilities across the policies. Each of the excess policies at issue contained a requirement of exhaustion of underlying coverage. The various policies described the applicable underlying coverage in four main ways: (1) some policies contained a schedule of underlying insurance listing all of the underlying policies in the same policy period by insurer name, policy number, and dollar amount; (2) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and a schedule of underlying insurance on file with the insurer; (3) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and identified one or more of the underlying insurers; and (4) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance that corresponds with the combined limits of the underlying policies in that policy period. The excess policies also provided, in various ways, that “other insurance” must be exhausted before the excess policy can be accessed. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Michael E. DiFebbo, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. DiFebbo may be contacted at difebbom@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Virginia Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade

    December 13, 2022 —
    VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — The Virginia Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) released the 2022 Report Card for Virginia's Infrastructure today, with 11 categories of infrastructure receiving an overall grade of a 'C'. That means Virginia's infrastructure is in mediocre condition and requires attention. Virginia is a step ahead of the national average of 'C-' given in the 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure. Nine of the 11 categories ranked higher than the national grades, as only rail ('C-' compared to the national 'B' grade) and wastewater (tied with the national grade of 'D+') ranked the same or lower, a testament to the state's prioritization of its built environment. Virginia has implemented ambitious plans to improve each of its infrastructure systems and additional resources from the state level and the bipartisan infrastructure law will help these efforts. Civil engineers graded bridges (B), dams (C+), drinking water (C+), public parks (C), rail (C-), roads (C-), schools (C-), solid waste (B-), stormwater (C-), transit (C-), and wastewater (D+). Virginia's transportation sector has performed better than the national average. Roughly 3% of the state's bridges are in poor condition – less than half the national average of 7.5% -- and the percentage of roads in 'good' condition rose from 48% in 2018 to 51% in 2022. Virginia is also a regional leader in transit services with connection to the Washington, D.C. Metro system and with 41 transit systems across the state, some of which have already surpassed pre-pandemic ridership levels. However, wastewater systems, despite making progress by reducing sewage overflows, face more than $6 billion in needs over 20 years and will need significantly more resources to improve systems and protect water quality for communities and the natural environment. The Report Card was created as a public service to citizens and policymakers to inform them of the infrastructure needs in their state. Civil engineers used their expertise and school report card-style letter grades to condense complicated data into an easy-to-understand analysis of Virginia's infrastructure network. ASCE State and Regional Infrastructure Report Cards are modeled after the national Infrastructure Report Card, which gave America's infrastructure an overall grade of 'C-' in 2021. To view the report card and all five categories, visit https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/Virginia/. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    July 05, 2011 —

    The insured homeowners were unsuccessful in arguing around the policy's exclusions when seeking coverage for damage caused by Chinese drywall. Ross v. C. Adams. Constr. & Design, L.L.C., 2011 La. App. LEXIS 769 (La. Ct. App. June 14, 2011).

    Before the insureds purchased and moved into their home, it was renovated. After moving in, the insures discovered foreign gypsum drywall, or Chinese drywall. The insureds submitted a claim to Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company. In an investigation, the insurer confirmed the presence of Chinese drywall and damage to the metal surfaces caused by corrosion. Louisiana Citizens refused coverage and the insureds sued. The trial court denied the insured's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Louisiana Citizens.

    The court of appeal affirmed. Initially, the court determined the insureds sustained a direct physical loss. The inherent qualities of the Chinese drywall created a physical loss to the home and required that the drywall be removed and replaced.

    Four exclusions, however, barred coverage. First, damages due to faulty or defective materials were excluded from coverage. The Chinese drywall emitted high levels of sulfuric gas which caused the damage to the insured's plumbing, electrical wiring and metal components.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    The Big Three: The 9th Circuit Joins The 6th Circuit and 7th Circuit in Holding That Sanctions For Bad-Faith Litigation Tactics Can Only Be Awarded Against Individual Lawyers and Not Law Firms

    September 03, 2015 —
    In Law v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2015 S.O.S. 13–56099 – filed August 27, 2015), the Ninth Circuit joined the shortlist of Circuit Courts to hold that sanctions for bad-faith litigation tactics under 28 U.S.C. section 1927 can only be sought against individual attorneys and not law firms. Section 1927 authorizes sanctions against “[a]ny attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States … who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously….” On behalf of the client, an attorney with Kaass Law filed a complaint against ten different defendants, including Wells Fargo Bank, which moved to dismiss under F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(6). Rather than responding to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the initial complaint; Wells Fargo Bank filed a notice of non-opposition. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher B. Lloyd, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr.Lloyd may be contacted at clloyd@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of