BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architect
    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


    IRMI Expert Commentary: Managing Insurance Coverage from Multiple Insurers

    A New Way to Design in 3D – Interview with Pouria Kay of Grib

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Fair Share Act Does Not Preempt Common Law When Apportioning Liability

    Killer Subcontract Provisions

    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)

    ASCE Statement on Devastating Impacts of Hurricane Helene

    Tax Increase Pumps $52 Billion Into California Construction

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    Man Pleads Guilty in Construction Kickback Scheme

    Architect Plans to 3D-Print a Two-Story House

    Benefits to Insureds Under Property Insurance Policy – Concurrent Cause Doctrine

    NTSB Sheds Light on Fatal Baltimore Work Zone Crash

    Factories Boost U.S. Output as Builders Gain Confidence: Economy

    Excess Carrier's Declaratory Judgment Action Stayed While Underlying Case Still Pending

    Select the Best Contract Model to Mitigate Risk and Achieve Energy Project Success

    Standard of Care

    Colorado Senate Bill 15-177: This Year’s Attempt at Reasonable Construction Defect Reform

    Colorado Court of Appeals Defines “Substantial Completion” for Subcontractors’ Work so as to Shorten the Period of Time in Which They Can Be Sued

    ENR Northwest’s Top Contractors Survey Reveals Regional Uptick

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Los Angeles Office on Another Successful MSJ!

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (4/10/24) – Hotels Integrate AI, Baby-Boomers Stay Put, and Insurance Affects Housing Market

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twelve White and Williams Lawyers

    Preparing For the Worst with Smart Books & Records

    The Great Fallacy: If Builders Would Just Build It Right There Would Be No Construction Defect Litigation

    Traub Lieberman Team Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Client Under Florida’s Newly Implemented Summary Judgment Standard

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

    UCP Buys Citizen Homes

    Architects Group Lowers U.S. Construction Forecast

    Companies Move to Houston Area and Spur Home Building

    OIRA Best Practices for Administrative Enforcement and Adjudicative Actions

    Hoboken Mayor Admits Defeat as Voters Reject $241 Million School

    Another Way a Mechanic’s Lien Protects You

    Jury Trials and Mediation in Philadelphia County: Virtually in Person

    California Insurance Commissioner Lacks Authority to Regulate Formula for Estimating Replacement Cost Value

    Traub Lieberman Elects New Partners for 2020

    As Single-Family Homes Get Larger, Lots Get Smaller

    MDL Panel Grants Consolidation for One Group of COVID-19 Claims

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases

    Navigating Threshold Arbitration Issues in Construction Contracts

    Massachusetts High Court to Decide if Insurers Can Recoup Defense Costs

    Assessing Defective Design Liability on Federal Design-Build Projects

    Judicial Economy Disfavors Enforcement of Mandatory Forum Selection Clause

    Chinese Millionaire Roils Brokers Over Shrinking Mansion

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

    Macron Visits Notre Dame 2 Years After Devastating Fire

    Illinois Appellate Court Addresses Professional Services Exclusion in Homeowners Policy

    Comply with your Insurance Policy's Conditions Precedent (Post-Loss Obligations)

    As of July 1, 2024, California Will Require Most Employers to Have a Written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and Training. Is Your Company Compliant?

    Court Holds That Trimming of Neighbor’s Trees is Not an Insured Accident or Occurrence

    Southern California Lost $8 Billion in Construction Wages
    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

    Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit

    December 09, 2011 —

    The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Peters v. Marque Homes. In this case, Walter Peters provided the land and funding for Marque Homes to build a luxury residence in Glendale, Arizona. By the terms of the “Joint Venture Agreement,” Peters provided the land and funding, while Marque would not charge Peters for overhead, profits, or supervision fees. The agreement specified that profits would be divided equally.

    Two years later, Marque sued Peters claiming he had breached his obligations by refusing several offers for the home. Peters replied that Marque had “failed to complete the home so it is habitable to prospective purchasers.” Peters stated he had “retained an expert inspector who had identified numerous defects.” The court appointed a Special Commissioner to list the home for sale. Peters purchased the home with two stipulations ordered by the court. At this point, the earlier case was dismissed with prejudice.

    Peters then sued Marque “asserting express and implied warranty claims arising out of alleged construction defects in the home.” Marque claimed that Peters’s claims were “precluded by the prior joint venture dispute.” The court granted Marque’s motion.

    The appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision, determining that Peters’s claims were not precluded by the agreement. Although there had been a prior case between the two parties, warranty issues did not form a part of that case. “Peters never raised these allegations nor presented this evidence in support of any warranty claim.”

    The court also noted that the “parties never agreed to preclude future warranty claims.” Marque and Peters “agreed in the stipulated sale order that ‘the sale of the property to a third party shall be “as is” with a 10-year structural warranty.’” The court noted that the agreement said nothing about one of the parties buying the house.

    The appeals court left open a claim by Marque that there are no implied or express warranties available to Peters. They asked the Superior Court to address this.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Stacking of Service Interruption and Contingent Business Interruption Coverages Permitted

    December 10, 2015 —
    The court found that stacking of interruption coverages was allowed based up the language of the policy. Lion Oil Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148261 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 2, 2015). The insured's oil line was ruptured, causing an interruption of crude oil delivery service. The insured held policies issued by National Union. The policies included multiple time element extensions. One extension related to Service Interruption which promised to insure against loss for:
    Service Interruption: electrical, steam, gas, water, sewer, incoming or outgoing voice, data, or video, or an other utility or service transmission lines and related plants, substations and equipment situated on or outside of the premises.
    Both parties agreed that the service interruption provision was unambiguous and that the court should give effect to the plain language of the policy. 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

    Commencing of the Statute of Repose for Construction Defects

    November 08, 2021 —
    Florida has a ten-year statute of repose which applies predominantly to construction defect claims. This can be found in Florida Statute s. 95.11(3)(c). After ten years, any rights relative to a construction defect claim are time-barred. However, the statute of repose date has been watered down and can be made to be more of a factual question due to the lack of objectivity as to the date that starts the ten-year repose clock. The watering down of the statute of repose date benefits parties asserting construction defect claims provided they strategically appreciate the question of fact that can be created when up against the statute of repose. Stated differently, when up against the clock to assert a construction defect claim, strategically develop those facts, evidence, and arguments to maximize creating a question of fact as to when the statute of repose clock commenced. Conversely, as a defendant sued for construction defects, you want to maximize the facts, evidence, and arguments to fully establish the date the statute of repose clock had to commence for purposes of a statute of repose defense. The recent opinion in Spring Isle Community Association, Inc. v. Herme Enterprises, Inc., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2306b (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) demonstrates the factual question associated with the clock that starts the statute of repose date. This factual question is created by Florida Statute s. 95.11(3)(c) that provides:
    [T]he action [founded on the design, planning, or construction of an improvement to real property] must be commenced within 10 years after the date of actual possession by the owner, the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, or the date of completion or termination of the contract between the professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and his or her employer, whichever date is latest.
    Spring Isle Community Association, supra. (Note, see also current s. 95.11(3)(c) version in effect per hyperlink above.)
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    A Survey of Trends and Perspectives in Construction Defect Decisions

    November 27, 2013 —
    Thomas F. Segella, Ellen H. Greiper, and Matthew S. Lerner, partners at the firm Goldberg Segalia, together with Suzin L. Raso, an associate of the firm, have prepared a wide-ranging survey of cases, in their commentary, “Emerging Trends and Changing Perspectives on Construction Defect Claims. The authors examine 11 coverage cases, representing decisions from eight states, and 15 cases of litigation, here covering 11 states. In each case, they give a one-sentence summary, a further discussion of the case, and they end with a practice note. They start with Alabama, noting that the court found that “faulty workmanship is not an occurrence,” looking at the recent case of Owners Insurance Co. v. Jim Carr Homebuilders, LLC. Here they note that under Alabama law, “there was no damage to personal property or property of others; therefore, there was no ‘occurrence.’” They also note that “the policy involved did not contain a ‘subcontractor exception.’” In Georgia, they noted, the courts concluded that “damage to insured’s completed work is an ‘occurrence.’” Here they cite a recent decision of the Georgia Supreme Court, noting that the court looked at cases from Connecticut, South Carolina, Illinois, Texas, as well as the Fourth and Tenth Circuits. Under litigation, they look at such aspects of construction defect litigation such as the application of the economic loss doctrine in Kansas and Florida, and how the courts view arbitration agreements in states including New Jersey, Louisiana, and Colorado. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Eleventh Circuit Vacates District Court Decision Finding No Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims

    November 02, 2020 —
    The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer finding there was no duty to defend. Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Mac Contractors of Florida, LLC, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 23918 (11th Cir. July 29, 2020). Mac Contractors entered into a contract with homeowners to serve as general contractor for the construction of a custom residence. Problems arose during construction and Mac eventually led the job site before completing the project. The home owners sued, alleging that Mac and its subcontractors had left the residence "replete with construction defects." Damages were sought for having to repair and remediate all defective work performed by Mac. Mac tendered under its CGL policy to its insurer, Southern-Owners. A defense was granted, but later withdrawn when Southern-Owners filed suit seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify Mac. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court found in favor of Southern-Owners based on the exclusion for "Damage to Your Work." The Eleventh Circuit vacated on appeal, concluding that the underlying complaint could fairly be construed to allege damages that fell outside of the exclusion. 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

    Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Secures Summary Judgment Win for National Hotel Chain

    August 26, 2019 —
    On June 26, 2019, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP Partner Bradley T. Guldalian secured summary judgment on behalf of a national hotel chain in a slip and fall accident filed in Osceola County Circuit Court in Kissimmee, Florida. The underlying loss occurred when the Plaintiff slipped and fell in a puddle of water allegedly existing in the hotel’s laundry room and suffered a partial thickness rotator cuff tear involving the distal infraspinatus tendon for which he underwent surgery and incurred over $70,000 in medical bills. The Plaintiff filed a premises liability action against the hotel claiming the hotel had failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition proximately causing the Plaintiff’s fall and resulting injuries. After discovery closed, Mr. Guldalian filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the hotel arguing that to prevail in a negligence claim involving a “transitory foreign substance”, such as water on a floor, an injured party must plead and prove pursuant to Florida Statute 768.0755 that the business establishment had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and should have taken action to remedy it prior to the time of the alleged fall. Constructive knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence showing that (1) the dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care, the business establishment should have known of the condition or (2) that the condition occurred with such regularity that it was foreseeable that the condition would be present on the day the injury occurred. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bradley T. Guldalian, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Guldalian may be contacted at bguldalian@tlsslaw.com

    Cal/OSHA-Approved Changes to ETS Will Take Effect May 6, 2022

    May 16, 2022 —
    A new, third revised version of the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards (“ETS”) has been approved by Cal/OSHA, and is expected to go into effect on May 6, 2022. This updated ETS will likely be in effect through Dec. 31, 2022. The language still needs to be reviewed, finalized, and filed with the Secretary of State by the Office of Administrative Law, but a redline of the proposed changes that Cal/OSHA has approved is available here. Much of the previous ETS (which took effect in January 2022, and we discussed here) will remain in effect. But the new version includes some key changes, including the following:
    • Employers will now have similar obligations toward employees who are fully vaccinated and employees who are not fully vaccinated with respect to testing and face coverings. Employers must make COVID-19 testing available at no cost to all symptomatic employees during the employee’s paid time, regardless of the employee’s vaccination status. Employers also must make respirators available to all employees upon request, again regardless of the employee’s vaccination status.
    Reprinted courtesy of Matthew C. Lewis, Payne & Fears and Nicole R. Kardassakis, Payne & Fears Mr. Lewis may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com Ms. Kardassakis may be contacted at nrk@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    GOP, States, Industry Challenge EPA Project Water Impact Rule

    January 02, 2024 —
    Days after the Biden administration rule reinstated state authority under the U.S. Clean Water Act to delay or deny construction permits on projects with water quality impacts, attorneys general from 11 Republican-led states, along with the American Petroleum Association, National Hydropower Association and Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, filed suit in federal court. 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