BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut window 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


    More thoughts on Virginia Mechanic’s Liens

    DC Metro Extension’s Precast Supplier Banned from Federal Contracts

    Congress to be Discussing Housing

    Follow Up on Continental Western v. Shay Construction

    Denver’s Proposed Solution to the Affordable Housing Crisis

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

    DOI Aims to Modernize its “Inefficient and Inflexible” Type A Natural Resource Damages Assessment Regulations

    Fix for Settling Millennium Tower May Start This Fall

    Corps Spells Out Billions in Infrastructure Act Allocations

    Meet D1's Neutrals Series: KENNETH FLOREY

    Contractor Covered for Voluntary Remediation Efforts in Completed Homes

    Architect Blamed for Crumbling Public School Playground

    Rather Than Limit Decision to "That Particular Part" of Developer's Policy Necessary to Bar Coverage, 10th Circuit Renders Questionable Decision on Exclusion j(6)

    Traub Lieberman Partner Gregory S. Pennington and Associate Emily A. Velcamp Obtain Summary Judgment in Favor of Residential Property Owners

    Know Whether Your Course of Business Operations Are Covered Or Excluded By Your Insurance

    Cross-Motions for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings for COVID-19 Claim Denied

    Hawaii Supreme Court Says Aloha to Insurers Trying to Recoup Defense Costs From Policyholders

    Uniwest Rides Again (or, Are Architects Subject to Va. Code Section 11-4.1?)

    No Coverage For Construction Defect Under Illinois Law

    Beth Cook Expands Insurance Litigation Team at Payne & Fears

    Colombia's $15 Billion Road Plan Bounces Back From Bribe Scandal

    Quick Note: Aim to Avoid a Stay to your Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Guidance for Construction Leaders: How Is the Americans With Disabilities Act Applied During the Pandemic?

    Be Careful When Requiring Fitness for Duty Examinations

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle, Eric D. Suben, and Justyn Verzillo Secure Dismissal of All Claims in a Premises Liability Case

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

    Property Insurance Exclusion: Leakage of Water Over 14 Days or More

    Manhattan Trophy Home Sellers Test Buyer Limits on Price

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

    Contractors: A Lesson on Being Friendly

    A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Citizen Suits and the Summer of 2022

    Termination of Construction Contracts

    New York Court Permits Asbestos Claimants to Proceed Against Insurers with Buyout Agreements

    General Contractor’s Intentionally False Certifications Bar It From Any Recovery From Owner

    Navigating Construction Contracts in the Energy Sector – Insights from Sheppard Mullin’s Webinar Series

    Contract Change #8: Direct Communications between Owners and Contractors (law note)

    Compliance with Contractual and Jurisdictional Pre-Suit Requirements is Essential to Maximizing Recovery

    Seeking the Urban Lifestyle in the Suburbs

    Legislative Changes that Impact Construction 2017

    Bel Air Mansion Construction Draws Community Backlash

    Insurer Must Cover Construction Defects Claims under Actual Injury Rule

    Faulty Workmanship may be an Occurrence in Indiana CGL Policies

    Value In Being Deemed “Statutory Employer” Under Workers Compensation Law

    Should CGL Insurer have Duty to Defend Insured During Chapter 558 Notice of Construction Defects Process???

    Three Steps to a Safer Jobsite

    Banks Rejected by U.S. High Court on Mortgage Securities Suits

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

    Texas and Georgia Are Paying the Price for Sprawl

    Corporate Transparency Act’s Impact on Real Estate: Reporting Companies, Exemptions and Beneficial Ownership Reporting (webinar)

    Construction Activity on the Upswing
    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

    New York Court Permits Asbestos Claimants to Proceed Against Insurers with Buyout Agreements

    December 06, 2021 —
    A recent New York federal district court decision addresses a number of issues in the context of asbestos coverage involving an insolvent insured, holding that policy buyout agreements between the insured and its insurers did not bar actions by certain tort judgment creditors against some of the settling insurers, and further finding that such agreements can constitute fraudulent conveyances, especially where the proceeds of the settlement are not reserved for payment of insured claims. In the litigation pending in the Western District of New York (Mineweaser v. One Beacon Insurance Company, et al., No. 14-CV-0585A), certain asbestos plaintiffs sought recovery from excess insurers for judgments obtained against an insolvent asbestos supplier (Hedman Resources, formerly known as Hedman Mines), which ceased operations in 2007 due to insolvency. Hedman had at one time been a subsidiary of Gulf & Western. As of 2009-2011, the excess insurers of Gulf & Western were advised of exhaustion of primary insurance as well as Hedman’s insolvency. Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams LLP and Frank J. Perch, III, White and Williams LLP Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Perch may be contacted at perchf@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    December 02, 2015 —
    The Florida Court of Appeals determined that there was no coverage for damage to the insured's home caused by the installation of Chinese drywall. Peek v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co., 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 14147 (Fla. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2015). Chinese drywall was installed in the Peek's new home. After moving in, the Peeks reported to American Integrity a sulfur odor caused by the Chinese drywall. The odor caused the Peeks to vacate their home. The Peeks also claimed corrosion and deterioration of copper coils in the air conditioning system were caused by the Chinese drywall. American Integrity denied coverage based upon policy exclusions for latent defects, corrosion, pollutants, and faulty, inadequate or defective constrution materials. The Peeks sued American Integrity. 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

    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

    Waiving Workers’ Compensation Immunity for Indemnity: Demystifying a Common and Scary-Looking Contract Term

    October 07, 2016 —
    Parties to a construction contract are often skeptical of terms in bold fonts, capital letters, or underlining, and especially terms requiring separate signatures or initials. A natural assumption is that such terms must be harmful if they require such emphasis. This concern is further heightened when the term involves complex areas of law, or waivers of rights that the party may not fully understand. In such cases, a little knowledge can go a long way. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James R. Lynch, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Lynch may be contacted at jlynch@ac-lawyers.com

    Approaching Design-Build Projects to Avoid (or Win) Disputes

    August 07, 2023 —
    Stakeholders engage in design-build projects believing the collaborative nature better aligns parties' interests and reduces overall risk exposure. Each of the lead parties bases this belief on different factors—the owner sees an opportunity to reduce change-order exposure and improve delivery times, the design-builder (or contractor) aims to control design volatility by ensuring project components match budgeted projections, and the designer intends to benefit by greater constructability review from the design-builder team and often additional time to detail designs. Rarely do design-build parties contemplate claims arising while initiating a project. This being said, design-build projects carry unique, inherent risks due to the award of often fixed-price contracts utilizing incomplete, preliminary designs. As scopes creep and costs balloon, previously harmonious parties experience discord and lurking claims. While the majority of design-build projects are completed without major dispute, there are strategies available to further avoid disputes and prevail in those that are unavoidable. Reprinted courtesy of Stuart Eisler, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Judgment Proof: Reducing Litigation Exposure with Litigation Risk Insurance

    March 04, 2024 —
    It is not just your imagination: verdicts are getting bigger. So-called “nuclear verdicts” have increased in size and frequency over the past decade, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic. Litigation risk insurance is a little known, but highly effective, option meant to compliment traditional insurance products and provide additional protection for policyholders nervous about litigation exposure. Unfortunately, it is difficult to predict the exposure presented by any particular case. Between 2020 and 2022, the median verdict increased 95%—from $21.5 million to $41.1 million. In 2022, a jury handed down a verdict worth $7.3 billion for injury to a single plaintiff. Even if an injury or loss is minor, juries have shown that they are willing to penalize corporate defendants with punitive damages that significantly exceed the award of compensatory damages. With such uncertainty and millions (if not billions) at stake, companies can reduce risk with litigation risk insurance. Three key types of litigation risk insurance include: (1) punitive wrap insurance, (2) adverse judgment insurance, and (3) judgment preservation insurance. Reprinted courtesy of Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Charlotte Leszinske, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com Ms. Leszinske may be contacted at cleszinske@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws

    May 13, 2014 —
    A fee-shifting bylaw of a Delaware non-stock corporation is not facially invalid according to the Delaware Supreme Court’s May 8, 2014 opinion in ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund. In this case, ATP Tour, Inc., a non-stock membership corporation (“ATP”) governed by a seven member board, had adopted a bylaw provision which provided that current and former members of ATP would be responsible for the litigation costs arising out of any litigation initiated by any such member against ATP or any of the other members in which the initiating party did not obtain a judgment on the merits that substantially achieved in substance and amount the full remedy sought. The bylaw provision had been adopted, in accordance with ATP’s charter, by the Board unilaterally without any consent from the members. The members had agreed at the time they joined ATP to be bound by the bylaws, as amended from time to time. Two members of ATP initiated a suit against ATP relating to certain actions taken with respect the ATP’s tournament schedule and format alleging both federal antitrust claims and Delaware fiduciary duty claims but did not prevail on any of their claims. ATP then moved to recover its legal fees relating to such actions. Reprinted courtesy of Marc Casarino, White and Williams LLP and Lori Smith, White and Williams LLP Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage After Carbon Monoxide Leak

    September 09, 2024 —
    The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the insured's complaint after damage caused by a leak of carbon monoxide caused bodily injury. Allied Design Consultants, Inc. v. Pekin Ins. Co., et al., 2024 Ill. Ct. App. LEXIS 1433 (June 18, 2024). Carbon monoxide leaked in a building addition to a middle school, prompting 23 lawsuits to be filed against the insured, Allied Design Consultants, Inc. Allied was retained to perform certain architectural services to the building addition. Pekin Insurance Company had issued a business owners liability policy and a commercial umbrella liability policy to Allied. Pekin denied a defense to Allied based upon the policies' professional services exclusions. Allied filed suit for declaratory relief against Pekin. Pekin filed a counterclaim, seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The parties agreed the allegations in the personal injury complaint filed by Ferguson were typical and representative of the allegations in the other 22 underlying lawsuits. 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