BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut testifying construction 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


    Texas and Georgia Are Paying the Price for Sprawl

    Alabama Limits Duty to Defend for Construction Defects

    South Carolina’s New Insurance Data Security Act: Pebbles Before a Landslide?

    “But it’s 2021!” Service of Motion to Vacate Via Email Found Insufficient by the Eleventh Circuit

    Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Area Variance Standard; Property Owners May Obtain an Area Variance When Special Circumstances Existed at Purchase

    Builders Can’t Rely on SB800

    Coverage Found for Faulty Workmanship Damaging Other Property

    Dave McLain included in the 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America

    Gordon & Rees Ranks #5 in Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Nation

    Up in Smoke - 5th Circuit Finds No Coverage for Hydrochloric Acid Spill Based on Pollution Exclusion

    Why Federal and State Agencies are Considering Converting from a “Gallons Consumed” to a “Road Usage” Tax – And What are the Risks to the Consumer?

    SB 939 Proposes Moratorium On Unlawful Detainer Actions For Commercial Tenants And Allows Tenants Who Can't Renegotiate Their Lease In Good Faith To Terminate Their Lease Without Liability

    Lessee Deemed Statutory Employer, Immune from Tort Liability by Pennsylvania Court

    Structural Defects Lead Schools to Close off Areas

    First-Time Buyers Shut Out of Expanding U.S. Home Supply

    No Bad Faith In Filing Interpleader

    A Sample Itinerary to get the Most out of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar

    On Rehearing, Fifth Circuit Finds Contractual-Liability Exclusion Does Not Apply

    Is Construction in Arizona Back to Normal?

    Drafting or Negotiating A Subcontract–Questions To Consider

    Allocating Covered and Uncovered Damages in Jury Verdict

    Judge Gives Cintra Bid Protest of $9B Md. P3 Project Award New Life

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 6: Ensuring Availability of Insurance and State Regulations

    Women Make Their Mark on Construction Leadership

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

    KB to Spend $43.2 Million on Florida Construction Defects

    Courthouse Reporter Series: Two Recent Cases Address Copyright Protection for Architectural Works

    NIST Florida Condo Collapse Probe Develops Dozens of Hypotheses

    Virtual Mediation – How Do I Make It Work for Me?

    New Tariffs Could Shorten Construction Expansion Cycle

    Fire Tests Inspire More Robust Timber Product Standard

    Certificates of Merit: Is Your Texas Certificate Sufficient?

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Special Events

    White House Seeks $310M To Fix Critical San Diego Wastewater Plant

    Corps of Engineers to Prepare EIS for Permit to Construct Power Lines Over Historic James River

    Microsoft Said to Weigh Multibillion-Dollar Headquarters Revamp

    Texas Considers a Quartet of Construction Bills

    Continuous Injury Trigger Applied to Property Loss

    Alabama Court Determines No Coverage For Insured's Faulty Workmanship

    Differing Site Conditions Produce Differing Challenges

    Thank You!

    Court Requires Adherence to “Good Faith and Fair Dealing” in Construction Defect Coverage

    There’s the 5 Second Rule, But Have You Heard of the 5 Year Rule?

    Second Month of US Construction Spending Down

    Delaware Court Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    Just Because You Caused it, Doesn’t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine

    New York Court Holds Insurer Can Rely on Exclusions After Incorrectly Denying Defense

    Puerto Rico Grid Restoration Plagued by Historic Problems, New Challenges

    Cooperation and Collaboration With Government May Be on the Horizon

    How You Plead Allegations to Trigger Liability Insurer’s Duties Is Critical
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Architects Group Lowers U.S. Construction Forecast

    July 30, 2014 —
    Spending on non-residential construction in the U.S. will be less than initially projected as state and local governments scale back investments in such properties as schools and health-care buildings, the American Institute of Architects said. Total spending on commercial and institutional development probably will increase 4.9 percent this year, down from an earlier estimate of 5.8 percent, according to a semi-annual survey by the Washington-based group. A slowdown in funding for institutional projects, which include education, health-care, religious and public-safety facilities, has been a drag on the recovery of the wider industry, according to Kermit Baker, the AIA’s chief economist. The group expects institutional-construction spending to fall 0.1 percent this year, compared with January’s projection for an increase of 3.4 percent, Baker said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadja Brandt, Bloomberg
    Ms. Brandt may be contacted at nbrandt@bloomberg.net

    Colorado’s Need for Condos May Spark Construction Defect Law Reform

    January 29, 2014 —
    On January 6th, Ed Sealover of the Denver Business Journal reported that Denver Mayor Michael Hancock has asked Colorado legislators “to pass a reform law that will make it easier to build condos without fear of getting sued.” Hancock is one of several mayors “to advocate for a construction defects reform proposal that was killed by Democrats in a committee last year.” The problem, Sealover notes, is that only “2 percent of new housing in the state is multifamily units made for ownership—far lower than the 20 to 25 percent of such housing stock in other states represented by condos.” There is some dissent as to whether reforming construction defect laws is the solution to the housing problem: “Taking away rights of homeowners to get shoddy construction fixed in what is likely the most expensive purchase in their life is not the way to fix the lack of affordable housing,” Lynea Hansen, spokeswoman for a group of construction defect homeowners told Sealover. Furthermore, on January 7th, Sealover reported that Democrats “expressed skepticism” about a need to reform the laws, saying “they need more data on what is causing owner-occupied multifamily housing to be such a small part of the new housing market.” Moreover, Senate President-elect Morgan Carroll stated that she “wants to look into issues like why it is so hard to get insurance for building condominiums or examine why some areas of Colorado are seeing condo development and others aren’t.” Read the full story, January 6th article... Read the full story, January 7th article... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Eleventh Circuit Upholds Coverage for Environmental Damage from Sewage, Concluding It is Not a “Pollutant”

    May 24, 2018 —
    On April 20, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed an Alabama district court decision finding that an “absolute pollution exclusion” did not bar coverage for environmental property damage and injuries from a sewage leak. Evanston Ins. Co. v. J&J Cable Constr., LLC, No. 17-11188, 2018 WL 1887459, (11th Cir. Apr. 20, 2018). J&J Cable was hired to install underground electrical conduit in a subdivision when it struck and broke the sewer pipe to two homes. As a result, sewage backed up into the homes causing property damage and personal injuries. The commercial general liability policy at issue contained an “absolute pollution exclusion,” which sought to bar coverage for “bodily injury” and “property damage” arising out of the actual, alleged, or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste.” The insurer relied on an earlier Alabama federal district court decision, which precluded coverage for liability from lead paint exposure, concluding that lead was a pollutant under a similar exclusion. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, recognizing that insurance is a state law issue and opting instead to rely on binding state court precedent. The Eleventh Circuit, therefore, found that the decision in U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Armstrong, 479 So. 2d 1164 (Ala. 1985), by the state’s highest court, the Alabama Supreme Court, governed. That case made a distinction between industrial waste and residential sewage. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit found that the “absolute pollution exclusion” did not preclude coverage for liability for injuries caused by sewage. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters , Hunton Andrews Kurth and Alexander D. Russo , Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters  may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Russo  may be contacted at arusso@huntonak.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insureds' Experts Insufficient to Survive Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    October 17, 2023 —
    The magistrate recommended that insurer's motion for summary judgment be granted due to the insureds' expert's inability to present genuine issues of material fact. Walker v. Century Sur. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142408 (E.D. Texas July 17, 2023). The insureds' property sustained damage from Hurricane Laura. Colonial Claims inspected the property for Century and reported that a portion of the roof was damaged by the hurricane. Century paid insureds $2,212,34. Van Fisher, an engineer with Envista Forensics, then inspected the interior of the property on Century's behalf. Fisher reported that there was some covered interior damage caused by a leak from a storm-created opening in the roof. However, Fisher further reported that there was other interior damage caused by existing water leaks not attributed to the hurricane and thus not covered by the policy. Century then paid the insureds an additional $485.05 based on Fisher's inspection. 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

    Back Posting with Thoughts on Lien Waivers

    May 20, 2015 —
    After a week of being unable to post due to the rigors of my solo construction practice, I’m back on the blogging train. For those of you that missed my new musings this past week, I hope that you had a chance to look through some of the past Guest Post Friday posts for some good stuff to read. During the course of my busy week last week, a question came up regarding the mechanic’s lien waivers that commercial construction companies routinely execute as part of the payment process. The waiver forms vary, but each essentially states that in exchange for payment the payee, whether a subcontractor or supplier (or even general contractor) waives its future rights to record a mechanic’s lien for the work that is covered by the payment received. Most if not all of these forms further require a certification that the funds paid will either be used to pay suppliers or that suppliers have already been paid. This general description is not the reason for this post. As is always the case in the Commonwealth of Virginia where the contract is king and a court is unlikely to reinterpret any written contractual document, the devil is in how that waiver is worded. Some waivers are worded in such a way that they essentially require a payee to certify receipt of the funds prior to payment being received. These same forms require the same pre-payment certification that all suppliers and subcontractors of the payee have already been paid. In short they require a payee to both place complete trust in the payor that the check will be paid and that the check will not bounce while in many cases (often with an unstated “wink and nod”) claiming payment was already made when all know the likelihood is that it has not. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    California Court Broadly Interprets Insurance Policy’s “Liability Arising Out of” Language

    December 20, 2017 —
    In McMillin Mgmt. Servs. v. Financial Pacific Ins. Co., Cal.Ct.App. (4th Dist.), Docket No. D069814 (filed 11/14/17), the California Court of Appeal held that the term “liability arising out of,” as used in an ongoing operations endorsement, does not require that the named insured’s liability arise while it is performing work on a construction project. In the McMillin case, the general contractor and developer (McMillin) contracted with various subcontractors, including a concrete subcontractor and stucco subcontractor insured by Lexington Insurance Company. Both subcontractors performed their work at the project prior to the sale of the units. The Lexington policies contained substantively identical additional insured endorsements that provided coverage to McMillin “for liability arising out of your [the named insured subcontractor’s] ongoing operations performed for [McMillin].” Several homeowners filed suit against McMillin, alleging that they had discovered various defective conditions arising out of the construction of their homes, including defects arising out of the work performed by Lexington’s insureds. Lexington argued that there was no potential for coverage in McMillin’s favor under the endorsements because there were no homeowners during the time that the subcontractors’ operations were performing work at the project (the homes closed escrow after the subcontractors had completed their work); thus, McMillin did not have any liability for property damage that took place while the subcontractors’ operations were ongoing. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rose Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Failure to Meet Code Case Remanded to Lower Court for Attorney Fees

    May 24, 2011 —

    Judge Patricia J. Cottrell, ruling on the case Roger Wilkes, et al. v. Shaw Enterprises, LLC, in the Tennessee Court of Appeals, upheld the trial court’s conclusion that “the builder constructed the house in accordance with good building practices even though it was not in strict conformance with the building code.” However, Judge Cottrell directed the lower court to “award to Appellants reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in their first appeal, as determined by the trial court.”

    Judge Cottrell cited in her opinion the contract which specified that the house would be constructed “in accordance with good building practices.” However, after the Wilkes discovered water leakage, the inspections revealed that “that Shaw had not installed through-wall flashing and weep holes when the house was built.” The trial court concluded that:

    “Separate and apart from the flashing and weep holes, the trial court concluded the Wilkeses were entitled to recover damages for the other defects they proved based on the cost of repair estimates introduced during the first and second trials, which the court adjusted for credibility reasons. Thus, the trial court recalculated the amount the Wilkeses were entitled to recover and concluded they were entitled to $17,721 for the value of repairs for defects in violation of good business practices, and an additional 15%, or $2,658.15, for management, overhead, and profit of a licensed contractor. This resulted in a judgment in the amount of $20,370.15. The trial court awarded the Wilkeses attorneys” fees through the Page 9 first trial in the amount of $5,094.78 and discretionary costs in the amount of $1,500. The total judgment following the second trial totaled $26,973.93.”

    In this second appeal, Judge Cottrell concluded, that “the trial court thus did not have the authority to decide the Wilkeses were not entitled to their attorneys” fees and costs incurred in the first appeal.”

    Read the court’s decision

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

    Can Baltimore Get a Great Bridge?

    June 21, 2024 —
    When the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed after being struck by a massive container ship early in the morning on March 26, six highway workers were killed, a segment of the Baltimore Beltway was severed, the Port of Baltimore was largely shut down for two months — and the city lost an important piece of its identity. Before its destruction made it famous, the Key Bridge was not really a landmark like San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge or other charismatic spans that serve as symbols for their host cities. Built in 1977, it was a more utilitarian structure, with brawny trusswork that evoked the city’s industrial past, and an important job to do: It could carry the fuel-hauling tanker trucks that are prohibited from traveling through two nearby tunnels. Its visibility at the mouth of Baltimore’s harbor marked it as a prominent link between the modest communities that line the blue-collar waterfront and the glass apartment and office towers that now define the downtown skyline. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James S. Russell, Bloomberg