BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling 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


    HVAC System Collapses Over Pool at Gaylord Rockies Resort Colorado

    Cyber Thieves Phish Away a $735K Payment to a Minnesota Contractor

    Construction Defect Reform Bill Passes Colorado Senate

    Board of Directors Guidance When Addressing Emergency Circumstances Occasioned by the COVID-19 Pandemic

    Pennsylvania Superior Court Fires up a Case-By-Case Analysis for Landlord-Tenant, Implied Co-Insured Questions

    Disjointed Proof of Loss Sufficient

    Toll Brothers Surges on May Gain in Deposits for New Homes

    Contractor Gets Green Light to Fix Two Fractured Girders at Salesforce Transit Center

    Gain in Home Building Points to Sustained U.S. Growth

    Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered

    Surety's Settlement Without Principal's Consent Is Not Bad Faith

    Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Serves as Chair of the ABA Minority Trial Lawyer Committee’s Programming Subcommittee

    Excess Must Defend After Primary Improperly Refuses to Do So

    South Carolina Supreme Court Requires Transparency by Rejecting an Insurer’s “Cut-and-Paste” Reservation of Rights

    A Chicago Skyscraper Cements the Legacy of a Visionary Postmodern Architect

    2018 Update to EPA’s “Superfund Task Force Report”

    Appeals Court Affirms Civil Engineer Owes No Duty of Care to General Contractor

    When Your “Private” Project Suddenly Turns into a “Public” Project. Hint: It Doesn’t Necessary Turn on Public Financing or Construction

    Application of Set-Off When a Defendant Settles in Multiparty Construction Dispute

    Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete

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

    Norristown, PA to Stop Paying Repair Costs for Defect-Ridden Condo

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Brings Professional Development Series to Their Houston Office

    Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    The Dangers of an Unlicensed Contractor from Every Angle

    Selected Environmental Actions Posted on the Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulator Actions

    Nation’s Top Court Limits EPA's Authority in Clean Air Case

    Virginia Families Hope to Sue over Chinese Drywall

    South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship

    Auburn Woods Homeowners Association v. State Farm General Insurance Company

    This Is the Most Remote and Magical Hotel on Earth

    Recommencing Construction on a Project due to a Cessation or Abandonment

    Insurer's Attempt to Limit Additional Insured Status Fails

    Crumbling Roadways Add Costs to Economy, White House Says

    Design Professional Asserting Copyright Infringement And Contributory Copyright Infringement

    Wall Failure Due to Construction Defect Says Insurer

    Unlicensed Contractors Caught in a Sting Operation

    The Top 3 Trends That Will Impact the Construction Industry in 2024

    North Dakota Universities Crumble as Oil Cash Pours In

    The Problem with One Year Warranties

    Cross-Motions for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings for COVID-19 Claim Denied

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Finds Insured AOAO Not Liable for Securing Inadequate Insurance

    MDL for Claims Against Manufacturers and Distributors of PFAS-Containing AFFFs Focuses Attention on Key Issues

    Partner Denis Moriarty and Of Counsel William Baumgaertner Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2017

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    The Contract Disputes Act: What Every Federal Government Contractor Should Know

    Privileged Communications With a Testifying Client/Expert

    Zero-Net Energy Homes Costly Everywhere but at the Electric Meter

    Oregon Construction Firm Sued for Construction Defects

    New York Court Grants Insured's Motion to Dismiss Construction Defect Case and Awards Fees to Insured
    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

    Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

    February 04, 2013 —
    Douglas E. Cameron, Jay M. Levin, and Traci S. Rea look at the implications of a pair of Pennsylvania court decisions from 2012. The judge in both cases, Judge Wettick of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas held that comprehensive general liability policies do not cover any claims that arise from faulty workmanship. The three conclude that "these holdings may preclude coverage for any tort claims asserted against your company if the allegations involve construction defects, even if you are sued for property damage or personal injury by a third party to your construction contract." They note that both decisions have been appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Dismisses Coverage Action In Lieu of Pending State Case

    July 25, 2021 —
    The insurer's coverage action was dismissed by the federal court in favor of the pending case in state court. Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v Marquez, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108125 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2021). The underlying lawsuit was filed because of of an incident involving a golf cart on a sidewalk owned by the AOAO. The Marquezes owned the golf cart that injured the Murphy's child. Southern-Owners issued a CGL policy to the AOAO. The Marquezes submitted a claim to Souther-Owners for coverage in the underlying lawsuit as additional insureds under the policy. Southern-Owners defended the AOAO and the Marquezes in the underlying lawsuit pursuant to a reservation of rights. The underlying complaint alleged that the Marquezes negligently permitted their daughter to operate the golf cart on the AOAO's pedestrian walkway. Further, the AOAO negligently failed to reasonably maintain the premises. 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

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    July 31, 2013 —
    Defining words and phrases in the law can be a tricky proposition. In everyday life one would presume to know what the phrase “intended use” would mean, but when it comes to litigation, oftentimes the definitions become much more nuanced. On March 12, 2013, in the Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., WL 950800 (D. Colo. 2013) case, Senior District Court Judge Wiley Y. Daniel denied Third-Party Defendant Canal Insurance Company’s (“Canal”) motion to dismiss Third-Party Plaintiff Hartford Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Hartford”) third-party complaint. The case arose out of a liability insurance coverage dispute related to an underlying construction defect lawsuit. In the construction defect suit, a plaintiff homeowner’s association brought a suit against a developer and a general contractor (“GC”) among others. While the underlying action was settled, a dispute remained between Bituminous Casualty Corporation, which insured the GC, and Hartford, which insured the developer. Hartford asserted third-party claims against Canal seeking a declaration of Canal’s obligations and contribution in the event Hartford owed any defense or indemnity obligations to the GC. Hartford’s claims are based on the premise that Canal owed a duty to defend and/or indemnify the GC in the underlying action. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
    Brady Iandiorio can be contacted at Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

    Mich. AG Says Straits of Mackinac Tunnel Deal Unconstitutional

    June 03, 2019 —
    Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) has declared unconstitutional a late-2018 law that would create an authority to oversee construction of a key tunnel. The tunnel would house an oil-and-gas pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, ENR
    Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com

    Mind Over Matter: Court Finds Expert Opinion Based on NFPA 921 Reliable Despite Absence of Physical Testing

    September 12, 2022 —
    In Smith v. Spectrum Brands, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142262, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) considered whether the plaintiffs’ liability expert met the requirements of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and could testify that a filter pump for an aquarium tank was defectively designed and caused a fire at the plaintiffs’ home. The defendant filed a motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ liability expert on grounds that the expert’s opinion did not satisfy the reliability element of Rule 702 because the expert never conducted physical testing on the filter pump. The court found that the cognitive testing employed by the expert through various methods, including visual inspections of the evidence, a review of photographs of the scene and literature from the manufacturer, and research on similar products, was sufficiently reliable to admit his opinion. The Smith case involved a civil action brought by Jeanette Scicchitano Smith and Alexander Smith that arose from a 2019 fire at their residence in Lincoln University, Pennsylvania. The fire purportedly started in a filter pump, which was operating at the time of the fire, that the plaintiffs purchased in 2002 as part of an aquarium tank kit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Housing Starts in U.S. Little Changed From Stronger January

    March 19, 2014 —
    Housing starts in the U.S. were little changed in February after declining less than previously estimated a month earlier, indicating the home-building industry is stabilizing after bad winter weather curbed construction. The 0.2 percent decrease to 907,000 homes at an annualized rate last month followed a revised 909,000 pace in January, figures from the Commerce Department in Washington showed today. The median estimate in a Bloomberg survey called for a 910,000 rate after a previously reported 880,000 in January. Warmer temperatures, a pickup in demand during the spring selling season and limited housing supply may help fuel further gains in new residential construction. The outlook for the industry later this year depends on whether hiring picks up enough to overcome higher mortgage rates and home prices. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeanna Smialek, Bloomberg
    Ms. Smialek may be contacted at jsmialek1@bloomberg.net

    Ensuing Loss Provision Salvages Coverage for Water Damage Claim

    September 16, 2024 —
    The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's finding of no coverage and found that the ensuing loss provision provided coverage for water damage. 3524 East Cap Venture, LLC, et al. v. Weschester Fire Ins. Co., et al., 104 F. 4th 193 (D.C. Cir. 2024). Plaintiff 3534 East Cap Venture, LLC, a real-estate developer, hired plaintiff McCullough Construction, LLC, to build a residential and retail complex. Defendants Westchester Fire Insurance Company and Endurance American Insurance Company issued identical builders' risk policies, which covered the building while it was under construction. Each insurer was responsible for half of any qualifying losses. The policies covered loss caused by or resulting from water damage. The policies, however, excluded loss caused by "dampness of atmosphere" or by "[e]xtremes or changes in temperature." But the exclusions contained an exception if "loss by an insured peril ensues." 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

    Spearin Doctrine: Alive, Well and Thriving on its 100th Birthday

    January 15, 2019 —
    On December 9, 2018, United States v. Spearin, [1] a landmark construction law case, will be 100 years old. The Spearin “doctrine”[2] provides that the owner impliedly warrants the information, plans and specifications which an owner provides to a general contractor. The contractor will not be liable to the owner for loss or damage which results from insufficiencies or defects in such information, plans and specifications. Some construction lawyers questioned whether the Spearin doctrine was still viable in Washington after the Washington Court of Appeals decided the recent case of King County v. Vinci Constr. Grand Projets.[3] Some concerned contractor industry groups even considered a “statutory fix” in the wake of the Court of Appeals Vinci decision. It is our opinion that the facts in the Vinci case are distinguishable and the Spearin doctrine is alive and thriving in Washington. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com