BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant 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


    Will Maryland Beltway Developer's Exit Doom $7.6B P3 Project?

    Massachusetts Federal Court Holds No Coverage for Mold and Water Damage Claim

    Living Not So Large: The sprawl of television shows about very small houses

    Real Estate Trends: Looking Ahead to 2021

    Big Bertha Lawsuits—Hitachi Zosen Weighs In

    Modified Plan Unveiled for Chicago's Sixth-Tallest Tower

    ENR Northwest’s Top Contractors Survey Reveals Regional Uptick

    South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

    Condemnation Actions: How Valuable Is Your Evidence of Property Value?

    Contractor Jailed for Home Repair Fraud

    Luxury Villa Fraudsters Jailed for Madeira Potato Field Scam

    Wheaton to Require Sprinklers in New Homes

    Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit

    California Supreme Court Rights the “Occurrence” Ship: Unintended Harm Resulting from Intentional Conduct Triggers Coverage Under Liability Insurance Policy

    VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

    Apartment Boom in Denver a Shortcut Around Condo Construction Defect Suits?

    New York Supreme Court Building Opening Delayed Again

    The COVID-19 Impact: Navigating the Legal Landscape’s New Normal

    Congratulations 2016 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Ten Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the Best Lawyers in America© 2019

    Providing Notice of Claims Under Your Construction Contract

    Construction Law: Unexpected, Fascinating, Bizarre

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

    How BIM Helps Make Buildings Safer

    When Can a General Contractor’s Knowledge be Imputed to a Developer?

    Client Alert: Court Settles Conflict between CCP and Rules of Court Regarding Demurrer Deadline Following Amended Complaint

    NY Gov. Sets Industry Advisory Council to Fix Public Contracts Process

    How the Jury Divided $112M in Seattle Crane Collapse Damages

    The Flood Insurance Reform Act May be Extended to 2016

    DoD Will Require New Cybersecurity Standards in 2020: Could Other Agencies Be Next?

    When Business is Personal: Negligent and Intentional Interference Claims

    Beyond the COI: The Importance of an Owner's or Facilities Manager's Downstream Insurance Review Program

    Civil RICO Case Against Johnny Doc Is Challenging

    Part I: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    Labor Shortage Confirmed Through AGC Poll

    Hold on Just One Second: Texas Clarifies Starting Point for Negligence Statute of Limitations

    Pushing the Edge: Crews Carve Dam Out of Remote Turkish Mountains

    Sochi Construction Unlikely to be Completed by End of Olympic Games

    For Whom Additional Insured Coverage Applies in New York

    How a 10-Story Wood Building Survived More Than 100 Earthquakes

    Breath of Fresh Air

    And the Cyber-Beat Goes On. Yet Another Cyber Regulatory Focus for Insurers

    Are “Green” Building Designations and Certifications Truly Necessary?

    Insurer's Refusal to Consider Supplemental Claim Found Improper

    School District Gets Expensive Lesson on Prompt Payment Law. But Did the Court Get it Right?

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

    Good Indoor Air Quality Keeps Workers Healthy and Happy

    Traub Lieberman Partner Ryan Jones Provides Testimony Before Florida Senate Committees

    Just How Climate-Friendly Are Timber Buildings? It’s Complicated

    The G2G Year in Review: 2019
    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. Drawing 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

    Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    August 24, 2017 —
    Butler Weihmuller of Katz Craig LLP discussed Florida’s 10-year statute of repose law: “Under § 95.11(3)(c), the action must commence 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.” However, Weihmuller explains that parties may disagree on the specific date For instance, in Busch v. Lennar Homes, LLC, Florida’s 5th DCA recently “reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a homeowner’s construction defect claim that was filed just beyond 10 years after the closing date on the property.” The previous decision had been based on the notion that the contract had been completed upon the date of closing. The 5th DCA declared that “a contract is not completed until both sides of a contract have been performed” and “pointed to the ‘inspection and punch-list clause’ of the contract.” The clause indicated that “[a]ny remaining items that Seller has agreed to correct will be corrected by Seller at Seller’s sole cost and expense prior to closing or at Seller’s option within a reasonable time after closing.” Since not all punch-list items had been completed prior to closing, the 5th DCA held that the contract had not been completed at closing, and therefore the statute of repose did not begin until the punch-items had been accomplished. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Aging-in-Place Features Becoming Essential for Many Home Buyers

    March 12, 2014 —
    With the rising number of Americans over the age of sixty-five, there is an “upswing” in demand of “aging-in-place home features,” according to Big Builder. Big Builder also noted seven accessible features that homebuyers identified when surveyed by The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). A couple of the features listed were “doorways at least three feet wide” and “non-slip floors.” The survey results were reported in What Home Buyers Really Want, released in May 2013 by the NAHB. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Companies Can Be Liable for “Secondary Exposure” of Asbestos to Household Members

    October 26, 2017 —
    The history of asbestos regulation in the United States is complicated. Prior to the 1970s, asbestos-containing materials used in construction was widespread. In 1971, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued an emissions standard for asbestos as part of the Clean Air Act. In 1972, the EPA extended this regulation to an occupational standard and, over the next decade, the EPA together with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a wide array of regulations aimed at asbestos. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Arctic Roads and Runways Face the Prospect of Rapid Decline

    July 19, 2021 —
    Melting permafrost across Arctic regions has already caused highways to buckle and homes to sink. A new study conducted in the north of Alaska helps explain why rising temperatures are hitting roads, airports and other infrastructure particularly hard. Researchers who monitored temperatures and melting near Prudhoe Bay on Alaska’s North Slope documented how the thawing of frozen ground beneath a highway tended to spread laterally to the side of the road, with the melting process accelerated by snow accumulations and puddling. Those interactions led to more rapid thawing than in areas of undisturbed permafrost. Researchers also found that melting in their test area, alongside a highway that runs atop permafrost, followed a two-phase process — a gradual initial thaw, followed by an accelerated process once warming exceeded a critical point. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tony Frangie Mawad, Bloomberg

    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

    NAHB Speaks Out Against the Clean Water Act Expansion

    March 26, 2014 —
    The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) published a news release that declared that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal to expand the Clean Water Act “goes too far.” The EPA’s proposed expansion of the act would “increase the cost of new homes without a corresponding benefit to America’s lakes, rivers and other water bodies,” NAHB alleged. Kevin Kelly, NAHB president and a home builder and developer from Wilmington, Del., stated that the “EPA has added just about everything into its jurisdiction by expanding the definition of a ‘tributary’ – even ditches and manmade canals, or any other feature that a regulator determines to have a bed, bank and high-water mark. It’s a waste of taxpayer resources to treat a rainwater ditch with the same scrutiny as we would the Delaware Bay.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    March 01, 2012 —

    The Harmon Towers project in Las Vegas was eventually halted short of the planned forty-seven stories after “it was determined that there was substantial defective construction, including defective installation of reinforcing steel throughout the Harmon.” The American Home Insurance Company and Lexington Insurance Company put forth a claim that they had no duty to defend Perini Construction, the builder of the defective Harmon Towers. Further, American Home seeks to recover the monies American reimbursed Perini. The United States District Court of Nevada ruled in the case of American Home Assurance Co. v. Perini Building on February 3, 2012.

    The two insurance companies covered Perini and its subcontractors, Century Steel, Pacific Coast Steel, and Ceco Concrete Construction. Century Steel was the initial subcontractor for the reinforcing steel; they were later acquired by Pacific Coast Steel. In this current case, Perini Construction is the sole defendant.

    Perini sought a dismissal of these claims, arguing that without the subcontractors joined to the case, “the Court cannot afford complete relief among existing parties.” The court rejected this claim, noting that the court can determine the duties of the insurance companies to Perini, which the court described as “separate and distinct from those of the subcontractors.” The subcontractors “have not claimed an interest in the subject matter of the action.” The court concluded that it could determine whether Perini was entitled or not to coverage without affecting the subcontractors. The court rejected Perini’s claim.

    Perini also asked the court to abstain from the case, arguing that it was better heard in a state court. The court noted that several considerations cover whether a case is heard in state or federal courts. The court noted that if the case weighed heavily on state law, the state courts would be the obvious location. Further, if there were a parallel action in the state courts, “there is a presumption that the whole suit should be heard in state courts.” This is, however, no parallel state suit, although the court noted that Perini has “threatened” to do so.

    However, the issue of who is to blame for the problems at Harmon Towers has not been resolved. The court concluded that until the “underlying action” was concluded, it was premature to consider the issues raised in this case while the earlier lawsuit was still in progress. The court denied Perini’s motion to dismiss the case. Given that the outcome of the earlier construction defect case may lead to further litigation in state court, the District Court granted Perini’s motion to abstain, but staying their judgment until the construction defect case is resolved.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Awarding Insurer Summary Judgment Before Discovery Completed Reversed

    August 29, 2022 —
    The Florida Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's awarding of summary judgment to the insurer because discovery was not completed. Sacramento v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 4292 (Fla. Ct. App. June 22, 2022). The insured filed a claim under the all-risk policy for water damage caused by Hurricane Irma. Citizens denied the claim based upon a policy exclusion. The insured filed suit on March 8, 2019. On April 24, 2020, Citizens moved for summary judgment. A hearing was set for August 10, 2020. Citizens filed a notice for a deposition of a Mitigation Company representative scheduled to occur on December 1, 2020. On August 14, 2020, the insured filed an opposition to the summary judgment motion arguing that it would be premature to grant the motion because there were still pending depositions. The insured specifically requested that the trial court not enter summary judgment until the mitigation company's representative was deposed because he was a key witness who would be testifying regarding the cause of loss. 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