BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling 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


    Palo Alto Proposes Time Limits on Building Permits

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dispose of Hail Damage Claim Fails

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

    Environmental Justice Update: The Justice40 Initiative

    Float-In of MassDOT Span Sails, But Delay Dispute Lingers

    Supplement to New California Construction Laws for 2019

    The EEOC Is Actively Targeting the Construction Industry

    Miller Act CLAIMS: Finding Protections and Preserving Your Rights

    Quick Note: Third-Party Can Bring Common Law Bad Faith Claim

    How Tech Is Transforming the Construction Industry in 2019

    Consumer Confidence in U.S. Increases More Than Forecast

    Partners Nicole Whyte and Karen Baytosh are Selected for Inclusion in Best Lawyers 2021 and Nicole Nuzzo is Selected for Inclusion in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch

    A Court-Side Seat: A Poultry Defense, a Houston Highway and a CERCLA Consent Decree that Won’t Budge

    City Wonders Who’s to Blame for Defective Wall

    Project Completion Determines Mechanics Lien Recording Deadline

    City of Birmingham Countersues Contractor for Incomplete Work

    Mega-Consulate Ties U.S. to Convicted Billionaire in Nigeria

    Hunton Andrews Kurth Associate Cary D. Steklof Selected to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite Up & Comers List for 2019

    Hollywood Legend Betty Grable’s Former Home for Sale

    Can a Contractor be Liable to Second Buyers of Homes for Construction Defects?

    Contractors Liable For Their Subcontractor’s Failure To Pay Its Employees’ Wages And Benefits

    Snooze You Lose? Enforcement of Notice and Timing Provisions

    ZLien Startup has Discovered a Billion in Payments for Clients

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (3/6/24) – Steep Drop in Commercial Real Estate Investment, Autonomous Robots Being Developed for Construction Projects, and Treasury Department Proposes Regulation for Real Estate Professionals

    Can Your Employee File a Personal Injury Claim if They’re Injured at Work?

    Another Guilty Plea in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    Construction Defect Claims are on the Rise Due to Pandemic-Related Issues

    SB 721 – California Multi-Family Buildings New Require Inspections of “EEEs”

    Few Homes Available to Reno Buyers, Plenty of Commercial Properties

    Seattle Condos, Close to Waterfront, Construction Defects Included

    Conversations with My Younger Self: 5 Things I Wish I Knew Then

    Duty to Defend Affirmed in Connecticut Construction Defect Case

    NYC Hires Engineer LERA for Parking Garage Collapse Probe

    Federal Court Requires Auto Liability Carrier to Cover Suit Involving Independent Contractor Despite “Employee Exclusion”

    When is a Contract not a Contract?

    Craig Holden Named Top 100 Lawyer by Los Angeles Business Journal

    Late Notice Bars Insured's Claim for Loss Caused by Hurricane

    Top 10 Take-Aways: the ABA Forum's 2024 Mid-Winter Meeting

    He's the Top U.S. Mortgage Salesman. His Daughter Isn't Buying It

    Florida’s “Groundbreaking” Property Insurance Reform Law

    California Court of Appeal Makes Short Work Trial Court Order Preventing Party From Supplementing Experts

    St Louis County Approves Settlement in Wrongful Death Suit

    The Future of High-Rise is Localized and Responsive

    SFAA Commends U.S. Senate for Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

    Expert Excluded After Never Viewing Damaged Property

    Massachusetts High Court to Decide if Insurers Can Recoup Defense Costs

    10-story Mass Timber 'Rocking' Frame Sails Through Seismic Shake Tests

    DC Metro Extension’s Precast Supplier Banned from Federal Contracts

    Judge Tells DOL to Cork its Pistol as New Overtime Rule is Blocked
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Denial of Claim for Concealment or Fraud Reversed by Sixth Circuit

    October 01, 2014 —
    The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment to State Farm based upon the insured's alleged concealment of the truth when questioned about a fire that destroyed his home. Rose v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17312 (6th Cir. Sept. 8, 2014). A fire destroyed the insured's home. He reported the loss to State Farm, who assigned Rob Raker to investigate the claim. Coverage was denied because State Farm contended that the "Intentional Acts" and "Concealment or Fraud" conditions of the homeowner's policy were violated. The insured sued State Farm. The district granted summary judgment to State Farm after finding that some of the answers the insured gave to Raker were misleading and material. The court determined that the insured failed to identify multiple tax liens and judgments when questioned about his financial status. 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

    More Money Down Adds to U.S. First-Time Buyer Blues: Economy

    August 20, 2014 —
    The challenges facing prospective buyers of the least expensive homes in the U.S. are getting harder to overcome. Already beset by stagnant wages, growing student debt and competition from investors who are snapping up listings, those looking to purchase moderately priced houses must also provide more cash up front. The median down payment for the cheapest 25 percent of properties sold in 2013 was $9,480 compared with $6,037 in 2007, the last year of the previous economic expansion, according to data from 25 of the largest metro areas compiled by brokerage firm Redfin Corp. The higher bar is a symptom of still-tight credit that is crowding out first-time buyers even as interest rates remain near historical lows. Younger adults, who would normally be making initial forays into real estate, are among those most affected, weakening the foundations of the housing market and limiting its contribution to economic growth. Ms. Jamrisko may be contacted at mjamrisko@bloomberg.net; Ms. Leondis may be contacted at aleondis@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko and Alexis Leondis, Bloomberg

    Watch Your Step – Playing Golf on an Outdoor Course Necessarily Encompasses Risk of Encountering Irregularities in the Ground Surface

    May 08, 2023 —
    On April 27, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Walter Wellsfry, et al. v. Ocean Colony Partners, LLC (A165175, April 27, 2023) affirming summary judgment for a golf course owner on the grounds that the injured golfer’s lawsuit was barred by the primary assumption of risk doctrine. In doing so, the Court of Appeal found that outdoor golfers assume the risks associated with the topographical features of the course, including the risk of stepping on an inconspicuous tree root. Recreational golfer Walter Wellsfry was walking from a tee box back to his golf cart when he allegedly stepped on a small tree root concealed by grass, causing him to fall into his golf cart in immediate pain. The ground consisted of mixed terrain, including a combination of grass, dirt, and sand. The tree root was estimated to be approximately 1.5 inches high by 1.5 inches wide. Believing he may have only sprained an ankle, Wellsfry continued the course and reported the incident to management. He later sued the golf course owner Ocean Colony Partners for negligence, claiming that the tree root was a “hidden obstruction” creating an unreasonable risk of harm to anyone who traversed the area. Reprinted courtesy of Kaitlyn A. Jensen, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Jensen may be contacted at kjensen@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim

    January 27, 2010 —

    In the recent case of UDC-Universal Development, L.P. v. CH2M Hill, 2010 Cal.App.LEXIS 47 (filed January 15, 2010), the Sixth District Court of Appeal provided a stunning illustration of the far-reaching effects of the California Supreme Court’s holding in Crawford v. Weather Shield Manufacturing Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 541. In Crawford, the Court held the duty to defend under an indemnity agreement arose upon the mere tender of defense of a claim covered by the indemnity.

    In the UDC case, CH2M Hill provided engineering and environmental planning services to developer UDC on a project that ultimately wound up in a construction defect lawsuit by the homeowners association ( HOA ). UDC tendered its defense to CH2M Hill, the tender was rejected, and UDC filed a cross-complaint for negligence, breach of contract and indemnity against CH2M Hill and others. After the HOA’s construction defect claims were settled, UDC proceeded to trial against CH2M Hill. The jury found in favor of CH2M Hill on the claims for negligence and breach of contract. At the request of the parties prior to trial, the trial court ruled on the application of the indemnity agreement in light of Crawford and, in so doing, found that the defense obligation arose upon the tender and that CH2M Hill breached that duty despite the jury finding in favor of CH2M Hill.

    The Court of Appeal affirmed, noting that the defense obligation arose as soon as the defense was tendered and did not depend on the outcome of the litigation, and that the HOA’s general description of the defects along with an allegation that Doe engineers were negligent triggered the duty to defend.

    Although this case did not expand the crushing impact of Crawford’s holding, it is

    Read the full story...

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

    Court of Appeals Expands Application of Construction Statute of Repose

    December 29, 2020 —
    A recent decision by Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals in Puget Sound Energy, Inc v. Pilchuck Contractors, Inc.[1] demonstrates the broad application of the construction statute of repose to work performed by contractors. The construction statute of repose[2] bars certain legal claims based on construction activity if the alleged harm caused by the activity does not occur within a specific timeframe. The claims covered by the construction statute of repose include: all claims or causes of action of any kind against any person, arising from such person having constructed, altered, or repaired any improvement upon real property, or having performed or furnished any design, planning, surveying, architectural or construction or engineering services, or supervision or observation of construction, or administration of construction contracts for any construction, alteration or repair of any improvement upon real property.[3] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Schirmer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Schirmer may be contacted at jonathan.schirmer@acslawyers.com

    North Dakota Court Determines Inadvertent Faulty Workmanship is an "Occurrence"

    May 10, 2013 —
    Joining what it called the majority of jurisdictions, the North Dakota Supreme Court found that damage caused by faulty workmanship can be an "occurrence." K&L Homes, Inc. v. Am. Family Mutual Ins. Co., 2013 N.D. LEXIS 61 (N.D. April 5, 2013). The insured, K&L, was a general contractor who was sued after completing construction of a new home. The suit was based upon breach of contract and breach of implied warranties claims. The homeowners alleged that improper compacting of soil had caused shifting of their home, leading to property damage. K&L had hired a subcontractor to do the soil compaction work. The insurer denied coverage. K&L sued the insurer, but lost at the summary judgment stage. On appeal, K&L argued the policy should be interpreted to give effect to the document as a whole and the "subcontractor exception" to the "your work" exclusion should apply. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Hyundai to Pay 47M to Settle Construction Equipment's Alleged Clean Air Violations

    November 04, 2019 —
    Hyundai Construction Equipment Americas Inc. and its parent company are paying a $47-million civil penalty to settle federal allegations that the company sold construction vehicles that weren't certified to meet the appropriate Clean Air Act emissions standards, federal agencies say. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Illinois Supreme Court Limits Reach of Implied Warranty Claims Against Contractors

    April 10, 2019 —
    In a recent decision, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a purchaser of a newly constructed home could not assert a claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability against a subcontractor where the subcontractor had no contractual relationship with the purchaser. Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n v. Champion Aluminum Corp., 2018 IL 122022, ¶ 1. The decision overruled Minton v. The Richards Group of Chicago, which held that a purchaser who “has no recourse to the builder-vendor and has sustained loss due to the faulty and latent defect in their new home caused by the subcontractor” could assert a claim of a breach of the warranty of habitability against the subcontractor. 116 Ill. App. 3d 852, 855 (1983). In Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n, the plaintiff alleged that the condo building had several latent defects which made individual units and common areas unfit for habitation. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 3. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that privity should not be a factor in determining whether a claim for a breach of the warranty of habitability can be asserted. Id. at ¶ 19. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that claims for a breach warranty of habitability should not be governed by contract law but should instead be governed by tort law analogous to application of strict liability. Id. The Court reasoned that the economic loss rule, as articulated in Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d 69, 91 (1982), refuted the plaintiff’s argument that the implied warranty of habitability should be covered by tort law. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 20. Under the economic loss rule, a plaintiff “cannot recover for solely economic loss under the tort theories of strict liability, negligence, and innocent misrepresentation.” National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d at 91. The Court explained that the rule prevented plaintiffs from turning a contractual claim into a tort claim. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 21. The Court further noted that contractual privity is required for a claim of economic loss, and an economic loss claim is not limited to strict liability claims. Id. Because the plaintiff’s claim was solely for an economic loss, it was a contractual claim in nature; therefore, the Court concluded that “the implied warranty of habitability cannot be characterized as a tort.” Id. at ¶ 22. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Thomas Cronin, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Cronin may be contacted at tcronin@grsm.com