BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut engineering 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


    Mortgage Applications in U.S. Jump 11.6% as Refinancing Surges

    NJ Supreme Court Declines to Review Decision that Exxon Has No Duty to Indemnify Insurers for Environmental Liability Under Prior Settlement Agreement

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: The Duty to Defend

    Know your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in Effect

    It’s Not What You Were Thinking!

    Everyone's Moving to Seattle, and It's Stressing Out Sushi Lovers

    Sweet News for Yum Yum Donuts: Lost Goodwill is Not an All or Nothing Proposition

    Rising Construction Disputes Require Improved Legal Finance

    Two Texas Cities Top San Francisco for Property Investors

    Denver Council Committee Approves Construction Defects Ordinance

    New Jersey Construction Worker Sentenced for Home Repair Fraud

    Congress to be Discussing Housing

    Construction defect firm Angius & Terry moves office to Roseville

    Notice of Claim Sufficient to Invoke Coverage

    Florida Condo Collapse Shows Town’s Rich, Middle-Class Divide

    Liquidated Damages: A Dangerous Afterthought

    Eleven WSHB Lawyers Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars

    Planes, Trains and Prevailing Wages. Ok, No Planes, But Trains and Prevailing Wages Yes

    Insured Fails to Provide Adequate Proof of Water Damage Through Roof

    The Problem with One Year Warranties

    Wow! A Mechanic’s Lien Bill That Helps Subcontractors and Suppliers

    20 Years of BHA at West Coast Casualty's CD Seminar: Chronicling BHA's Innovative Exhibits

    With Vice President's Tie-Breaker, US Senate Approves Far-Reaching Climate Bill

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/10/24) – New Type of Nuclear Reactor, Big Money Surrounding Sports Stadiums, and Positivity from Fannie Mae’s Monthly Consumer Survey

    Developers Can Tap into DOE’s $400 Million for Remote and Rural Clean Energy Projects

    CA Supreme Court Expands Scope of Lawyers’ Statute of Limitations to Non-Legal Malpractice Claims – Confusion Predicted for Law and Motion Judges

    Hawaii Federal District Court Rejects Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    SFAA and Coalition of Partners Encourage Lawmakers to Require Essential Surety Bonding Protections on All Federally-Financed Projects Receiving WIFIA Funds

    What is Bad Faith?

    Effects of Amendment to Florida's Statute of Repose on the Products Completed Operations Hazard

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Inspectors Hurry to Make Sure Welds Are Right before Bay Bridge Opening

    Ninth Circuit Holds Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Applies Beyond All-Risk Policies

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2022 New York – Metro Super Lawyers®

    Privette: The “Affirmative Contribution” Exception, How Far Does It Go?

    Negligence of Property Appraiser

    Engineer Pauses Fix of 'Sinking' Millennium Tower in San Francisco

    California Pipeline Disaster Brings More Scandal for PG&E

    Changes to the Federal Rules – 2024

    Code Changes Pave Way for CLT in Tall Buildings and Spark Flammability Debate

    Homeowner may pursue negligence claim for construction defect, Oregon Supreme Court holds

    Does a Contractor (or Subcontractor) Have to Complete its Work to File a Mechanics Lien

    Cities' Answer to Sprawl? Go Wild.

    Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolute Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage For Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

    Neighbor Allowed to Remove Tree Roots on Her Property That Supported Adjoining Landowners’ Two Large Trees With Legal Immunity

    Motion to Dismiss Denied Regarding Insureds' Claim For Collapse

    Nevada Supreme Court Rejects Class Action Status, Reducing Homes from 1000 to 71

    The BUILDCHAIN Project Enhances Data Exchange and Transparency in the EU Construction Industry

    Got Licensing Questions? CSLB Licensing Workshop November 17th and December 15th

    ABC Chapter President Comments on Miami Condo Collapse
    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

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    September 01, 2011 —

    In Crossman Communities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co., No. 26909 (S.C. Aug. 22, 2011), insured Crossman was the developer and general contractor of several condominium projects constructed by Crossman’s subcontractors over multiple years. After completion, Crossman was sued by homeowners alleging negligent construction of exterior components resulting in moisture penetration property damage to non-defective components occurring during multiple years.  Crossman settled the underlying lawsuit and then filed suit against its CGL insurers to recover the settlement amount.  Crossman settled with all of the insurers except for Harleysville.  Crossman and Harleysville stipulated that the only coverage issue was whether there was an “occurrence.”  The trial court subsequently entered judgment in favor of Crossman, determining that there was an “occurrence.” The trial court also ruled that Harleysville was liable for the entire settlement amount without offset for the amounts paid by the other insurers.  

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

    Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Depreciation Claims

    September 23, 2024 —
    The insurer's motion to dismiss claims for improper claims handling when considering implementation of depreciation was denied. Morrison v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co, et al., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115664 (S. D. W. Va. July 1, 2024). Plaintiff's home suffered flood damage. The house was insured by Indian Harbor a surplus lines carrier that offered specialized and high risk property policies in West Virginia. Surplus lines policies were procured in West Virginia through a "surplus lines licensee." Here, Neptune Flood Inc. was the surplus lines licensee broker for Indian Harbor. Peninsula Insurance Bureau, Inc. was an administrator and loss adjuster involved in the claim. After the flood, Plaintiff notified defendants of the damage and immediately cleaned and repaired the house. Plaintiff asserted that Neptune was given notice of the loss and one of its agents made recommendations regarding the coverage available and conveyed the information to Peninsula and Indian Harbour. Plaintiff claimed that defendants misrepresented his policy coverage and made incorrect adjustments for depreciation based on Neptune's statements and recommendations. 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

    Constructive Notice Established as Obstacle to Relation Back Doctrine

    March 01, 2021 —
    In Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso v. City of San Jose, the Sixth Appellate District held that the relation back doctrine was inapplicable where a plaintiff received constructive notice of a defendant’s identity months prior to the last date where filing was permitted pursuant to an applicable statute of limitations. In Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso, Mark Espinoza, an Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso (OCA/Plaintiff) representative, asked the City of San Jose (“the city”) to place him on the public notice list for a proposed rezoning project. He also twice specifically requested a copy of the notice of determination (NOD) documenting the city’s certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) and approval of the project. Despite Espinoza diligently requesting all notices for the project, the city, in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), failed to send Espinoza the legally operative second NOD for the project; the first NOD was provided to OCA, but named an incorrect party in interest. Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas B. Brummel, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Brummel may be contacted at nbrummel@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Court of Appeals Addresses Choice of Law Challenges

    August 20, 2018 —
    In June, the New York Court of Appeals examined the application of a New York Choice of Law provision in a contract – a determinative issue for the case. In Ontario, Inc. v. Samsung C&T Corp., the issue was whether the plaintiff’s claims were subject to Ontario, Canada’s 2-year statute of limitations or New York’s 6-year statute of limitations for breach of contract where the contract contained a broad New York Choice of Law provision. The court found that pursuant to New York’s borrowing statute, Ontario’s more restrictive statute of limitations applied. The action was dismissed as time-barred, serving as a harsh reminder of the potential effects of choice of law and limitations periods. The suit arose out of the following facts. In 2008, an Ontario renewable energy developer, SkyPower Corp. (“SkyPower”), entered into a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with the defendants which allowed the defendants to review SkyPower’s confidential and proprietary information. The review was conditioned on restricted disclosure and the requirement that the information would be destroyed after review. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at gvh@sdvlaw.com

    New York Bars Developers from Selling Condos due to CD Fraud Case

    October 15, 2014 —
    According to GlobeSt, New York “Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has announced a settlement agreement that bars developers Joseph Scarpinito and Shiraz Sanjana—and five affiliated entities they own and operate—from offering or selling securities, including condo and coop sales, in or from New York State.” The settlement is in “result of an investigation by the Attorney General’s real estate finance bureau into allegations of fraud by the developers of the Mirada, an eight-story Harlem condominium.” GlobeSt also stated that the agreement “provides for binding arbitration with the condo purchasers for alleged construction defects, and requires the developers to pay $500,000 in penalties and fines to New York State.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Environmental Justice Legislation Update

    May 17, 2021 —
    Environmental Justice, as an urgent priority of the Federal Government, dates back to 1994, and President Clinton’s issuance of Executive Order 12898. This order directed federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, the disproportionately high and adverse human health and environment effects of its many programs, policies and procedures on minority populations and low-income populations. The primary legal basis for this order was Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in particular, Sections 601 and 602, which prohibit discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal financial aid and assistance. Over the years, the Supreme Court has reviewed the scope and importance of Title VI. In Alexander v. Sandoval, decided in 2001, the Court concluded that while private parties could sue to enforce Section 601 or its implementing regulations, as written, Section 601 only prohibits intentional discrimination. Noting that disproportionate impact is not the sole touchstone of invidious racial discrimination. Moreover, the Court also ruled in Sandoval that private parties cannot sue to enforce regulations implementing Section 602. Perhaps as an acknowledgement of these shortcomings, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established an administrative system to process environmental justice complaints at 40 CFR Part 7. Without strengthening the statutory base of environmental justice, the program may continue to be the subject of countless symposiums and seminars. However, this may change soon. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    DA’s Office Checking Workers Comp Compliance

    February 10, 2012 —

    The San Bernardino office of the California District Attorney is partnering with the California Contractor’s State License Board to check if subcontractors are holding the required workers compensation insurance. The High Desert Daily Press reports that the process of checking at sites has been going on for several months.

    Investigators visit sites and ask supervisors to provide a list of subcontractors which the state then checks for compliance. One worker was quoted that insurance inspections were so rare that he had never seen one before, despite 20 years in construction.

    On one day, investigators in two teams visited fourteen construction sites and reviewed the insurance status of twenty-two firms. Three were found out of compliance and stop work orders were issued.

    Read the full story…

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

    Incorporation, Indemnity and Statutes of Limitations, Oh My!

    January 19, 2017 —
    We all know that the contract is king in Virginia. We also know that Virginia will allow for a so called “incorporation” clause that will allow for “flow down” of certain prime contract provisions in a way that will make those provisions applicable to subcontractors. We also know that a claim for breach of contract or other contractual claim does not last forever due to certain statutes of limitation found in the Code of Virginia. What happens when all of these elements crash together in one place leading to litigation? Well, a relatively recent case from the Virginia Supreme Court gives at least a partial answer. In Hensel Phelps Construction Company v Thompson Masonry Contractor, Inc, the Virginia Supreme Court considered a claim that arose from construction at Virginia Tech by Hensel Phelps. The construction concluded in 1998 (remember that date). The Prime Contract included language concerning a one year “Guarantee of Work” as well as fairly typical Warranty of Workmanship” language. However the Prime Contract also stated that the one year guaranty term did nothing to affect any other limitations period for any other action pursuant to the Prime Contract (this is important as well because Virginia Tech was not subject to any statute of limitations due to its status as an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia). Final payment was made to Hensel Phelps and subsequently to the subcontractors in 1999. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com