BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction code 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


    Citigroup Reaches $1.13 Billion Pact Over Mortgage Bonds

    OSHA Advisory Committee, Assemble!

    General Contractor’s Intentionally False Certifications Bar It From Any Recovery From Owner

    Deadlines. . . They’re Important. Project Owner Risks Losing Claim By Failing to Timely Identify “Doe” Defendant

    One Stat About Bathrooms Explains Why You Can’t Find a House

    BHA’s Next MCLE Seminar in San Diego on July 25th

    Randy Maniloff Recognized by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® as a "Lawyer of the Year"

    The “Ugly” Property Next Door is Ruining My Property Value

    Insurer Prevails on Summary Judgment for Bad Faith Claim

    Arizona Contractor Designs Water-Repellant Cabinets

    Question of Parties' Intent Prevents Summary Judgment for Insurer

    Traub Lieberman Partner Rina Clemens Selected as a 2023 Florida Super Lawyers® Rising Star

    Court Finds Duty To Defend Environmental Claim, But Defense Limited to $100,000

    Who Says You Can’t Choose between Liquidated Damages or Actual Damages?

    Housing Advocacy Group Moved to Dissolve New Jersey's Council on Affordable Housing

    In South Carolina, Insurer's Denial of Liability Does Not Waive Attorney-Client Privilege for Bad Faith Claim

    Existence of “Duty” in Negligence Action is Question of Law

    Classify Workers Properly to Avoid Expensive Penalties

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2021 New York – Metro Super Lawyers®

    When Brad Pitt Tried to Save the Lower Ninth Ward

    CDJ’s #10 Topic of the Year: Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216.

    Be Careful with Good Faith Payments

    London’s Best Districts Draw Buyers on Italian Triple Dip

    Bid Bonds: The First Preventative Measure for Your Project

    How Finns Cut Construction Lead Times in Half

    At Least 46 Killed in Taiwanese Apartment Building Inferno

    Real-Estate Pros Fight NYC Tax on Wealthy Absentee Owners

    When Do Hard-Nosed Negotiations Become Coercion? Or, When Should You Feel Unlucky?

    Federal Court Sets High Bar for Pleading Products Liability Cases in New Jersey

    Fewer NYC Construction Deaths as Safety Law Awaits Governor's Signature

    Navigating the Hurdles of Florida Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Sales of New Homes in U.S. Increased 5.4% in July to 507,000

    Delaware State Court Holds that Defective Workmanship Claims do not Trigger Coverage by a Builder’s Commercial General Liability Policy

    Flag on the Play! Expired Contractor’s License!

    What You Should Know About Liquidated Damages and Liability Caps for Delay and Performance Liquidated Damages

    Project Team Upgrades Va. General Assembly

    Construction Professionals Could Face More Liability Exposure Following California Appellate Ruling

    Nevada Update: Nevada Commissioner of Insurance Updates Burning Limits Statute with Emergency Regulation

    Housing Sales Hurt as Fewer Immigrants Chase Owner Dream

    California’s One-Action Rule May Apply to Federal Lenders

    Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege

    CDJ’s #3 Topic of the Year: Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2014)

    Stop Losing Proposal Competitions

    The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions: A.B. 1701’s Requirement that General Contractors Pay Subcontractor Employee Wages Will Do More Harm Than Good

    Construction Defects Are Not An Occurrence Under New York, New Jersey Law

    When “Substantially Similar” Means “Fundamentally Identical”: Delaware Court Enforces Related Claim Provision to Deny D&O Coverage for Securities Class Action

    Drawing the Line: In Tennessee, the Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Apply to Contracts for Services

    San Francisco International Airport Reaches New Heights in Sustainable Project Delivery

    Security on Large Construction Projects. The Payment Remedy You Probably Never Heard of

    Safe Harbors- not just for Sailors anymore (or, why advance planning can prevent claims of defective plans & specs) (law note)
    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

    Choice of Laws Test Mandates Application of California’s Continuous and Progressive Trigger of Coverage to Asbestos Claims

    June 01, 2020 —
    In Textron v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. (No. B262933, filed 2/25/20), a California appeals court held that the Restatement’s choice of laws factors mandated application of California’s continuous and progressive trigger of coverage to asbestos claims, overcoming an argument that a manifestation trigger should apply under Rhode Island law. Travelers insured Textron from 1966 to 1987. In 2011, Textron was sued by a California resident, Esters, for damages caused by mesothelioma resulting from asbestos exposure in California. The action was defended and settled by Travelers and other insurers under reservations of rights. Textron sued Travelers in California for a declaration that Travelers owed duties to defend and indemnify the Esters action. Travelers cross-complained, seeking reimbursement. The case turned on choice of law for trigger of coverage as between California and Rhode Island. Citing Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 645 and Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1, the Textron court noted that California applies a continuous trigger to continuous or progressively deteriorating injury. By contrast, in Rhode Island a covered occurrence exists “when the damage … manifests itself, … is discovered or, … in the exercise of reasonable diligence is discoverable.” (Citing Textron, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. (R.I. 2002) 754 A.2d 742.) According to Travelers, the Esters action was not covered under Rhode Island law because the plaintiff’s mesothelioma was not diagnosed until 2010, after Travelers was off the risk. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fluor Agrees to $14.5M Fixed-Price Project Cost Pact with SEC

    September 25, 2023 —
    Fluor Corp. has agreed to pay $14.5 million to resolve a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation for alleged “improper accounting” and "overly optimistic" cost and timing estimates in bidding two legacy fixed-price projects that forced the company to restate its 2020 financial results, the agency said on Sept. 6. Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Action Violation

    October 26, 2017 —
    Two recent decisions from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Federal Claims highlight that sureties and bond producers are not immune to the potentially severe consequences of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) and related federal fraud statutes. In each case, the Court determined that sureties and bond producers can face potential liability under these fraud statutes for direct and indirect submission of false claims to the federal government Reprinted courtesy of Michael C. Zisa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Susan Elliott, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Zisa may be contacted at mzisa@pecklaw.com Ms. Elliott may be contacted at selliott@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Negligence Claim Against Flood Insurer

    December 22, 2019 —
    The insurer successfully moved to dismiss the insured's negligence claim and demand for jury trial, leaving only the insured's breach of insurance contract claim under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). La Mirage Homeowners Association Inc. v. Wright National Flood Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147667 (S.D. Tex. Aug 29, 2019). Hurricane Harvey damaged three of insured homeowner's association condominium's buildings. Wright National Flood Insurance Company was the insurer pursuant to the NFIP when the hurricane damaged the insured's property. The insured alleged that Wright breached the policy by underpaying on the flood loss claims and by not initiating the appraisal the insured demanded. The insured sought recovery for negligence, consequential damage, statutory penalties, attorney's fees and pre-and-post judgment interest. Wright moved to dismiss the extra-contractual claims and to strike the jury demand. The NFIP's regulations allowed homeowners to purchase policies either directly from FEMA or from private insurers that functioned as Write Your Own (WYO) providers and fiscal agents of the United States. The Fifth Circuit had previously held that state law tort claims arising from claims handling by a WYO were preempted under federal law. The court, therefore, was faced with the issue of whether the insured's claims of negligence, attorney's fees, statutory penalties, and interest were policy-handling claims which were preempted by federal law. 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

    Auburn Woods Homeowners Association v. State Farm General Insurance Company

    January 11, 2021 —
    In Auburn Woods HOA v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 56 Cal.App.5th 717 (October 28,2020) (certified for partial publication), the California Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) regarding a lawsuit for breach of contract and bad faith brought by Auburn Woods Homeowners Association (“HOA”) and property manager, Frei Real Estate Services (“FRES”) against State Farm and the HOA’s broker, Frank Lewis. The parties’ dispute arose out of the tender of two different lawsuits filed against the HOA and FRES by Marva Beadle (“Beadle”). The first lawsuit was filed by Beadle as the owner of a condominium unit against the HOA and FRES for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and an accounting related to amounts allegedly owed by Beadle to the HOA as association fees. The second lawsuit filed by Beadle was for the purpose of setting aside a foreclosure sale, cancelling the trustee’s deed and quieting title, and for an accounting and injunctive relief against an unlawful detainer action filed by Sutter Group, LP against Beadle. The complaint filed in the second lawsuit alleged that Allied Trustee Services caused Beadle’s property to be sold at auction and that Sutter Capital Group, LP purchased the unit and obtained a trustee’s deed upon sale. Beadle claimed the assessments against her were improper and the trustee’s deed upon sale was wrongfully executed. Beadle sought an order restoring possession of her unit and damages. The HOA and FRES tendered both lawsuits to State Farm. As respects the first lawsuit, State Farm denied coverage of the lawsuit based on the absence of alleged “damages” covered by the policy issued to the HOA affording liability and directors and officers (“D&O”) coverages. State Farm agreed to defend the HOA under the D&O coverage in the second lawsuit. However, State Farm denied coverage of FRES in both lawsuits as it did not qualify as an insured under the State Farm policy issued to the HOA. Subsequently, the HOA and FRES filed an action against State Farm arguing that a duty to defend was triggered under its policy for the first lawsuit and a duty to defend FRES was also owed under the D&O policy for the second lawsuit. After a bench trial, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of State Farm based on the failure of the first lawsuit to allege damages covered by the State Farm policy under the liability and D&O coverages afforded by the policy. As respects the second lawsuit, the trial court held that FRES did not qualify as an insured and State Farm did not act in bad faith by refusing to pay the HOA’s alleged defense costs in the second lawsuit before it agreed to defend the HOA against such lawsuit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Velladao may be contacted at Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com

    Construction Defect Bill Introduced in California

    June 10, 2011 —

    Linda Halderman (R-Fresno) has introduced a bill which would require lawyers soliciting clients for construction defect cases to provide their prospective clients with a statement including that sellers may be required to disclose that they were engaged in a construction lawsuit. Further, the bill would require lawyers to disclose that they cannot guarantee financial recovery.

    Halderman was quoted by The Business Journal as saying, “Lawsuit abuse has been very damaging, especially to homeowners in the Valley.” Halderman hopes that her bill will discourage class action lawsuits against builders and that this will protect jobs in the construction industry.

    Read the full story…

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

    How BIM Helps Make Buildings Safer

    July 01, 2019 —
    There are many uses for building information models that are yet to be discovered. One Finnish team collaborated with a city and fire & rescue authority to explore how BIM would help make buildings safer. “Imagine a fire inspector in a building with an AR headset. He can retrieve data from the building’s digital model and hence get an x-ray view of the pipes and cables behind the lowered ceiling.” That’s a scenario that Timo Lehtoviita pictured when we discussed the experimentation project which he led at Saimia, Saimaa University of Applied Sciences. Saimia, the city of Lappeenranta and their real estate company LATO, and the Rescue Department of South Karelia partnered in 2018 to explore the possibilities of using BIM to make buildings safer. The project, titled “Enhancing building safety using information models,” formed part of the national KIRA-digi built environment digitalization program. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Subrogation Waiver Unconscionable in Residential Fuel Delivery Contract

    April 29, 2024 —
    In a matter of first impression, the Superior Court of Connecticut (Superior Court), in American Commerce Ins., Co. v. Eastern Fuel Corp., No. CV-206109168-S, 2024 Conn. Super. LEXIS 380, held that a waiver of subrogation provision in a consumer fuel service/delivery contract violated public policy. The Superior Court overruled the motion for summary judgment filed by Eastern Fuel Corporation (Eastern) and determined that the clause was impermissible as the contract was entered into by two parties with unequal bargaining power. American Commerce Insurance Company (American) provided property insurance to Arlene and James Hillas (the Insureds) for their home in Woodbridge, Connecticut. The Insureds hired Eastern to service their heating system on or around October 25, 2018. The service work at the property included inspecting the oil filters and flushing the fuel lines. On November 1, 2018, when the Insureds turned the heating system on for the first time that season, the two oil tanks on the property were allegedly full. After a series of deliveries, claims that the oil levels were lower than expected, discovering oil staining on the floor and Eastern’s replacement of the oil lines, Eastern delivered another 429 gallons. However, after the delivery, additional leaks were discovered relating to the oil line replacements. Ultimately, the Insureds submitted a claim to American and American paid in excess of $59,000 for the damage incurred. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan A. Bennett, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Bennett may be contacted at bennettr@whiteandwilliams.com