BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut slope failure 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


    Caterpillar Forecast Tops Estimates as Construction Recovers

    Hurricane Harvey Victims Face New Hurdles In Pursuing Coverage

    Smart Contracts Poised to Impact the Future of Construction

    Virginia Families Hope to Sue over Chinese Drywall

    Indemnification Against Release/“Disposal” of Hazardous Materials

    Final Thoughts on New Pay If Paid Legislation in VA

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Highlighted | 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers

    Mortgage Firms Face Foreclosure Ban Until 2022 Under CFPB Plan

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

    Hollywood Legend Betty Grable’s Former Home for Sale

    Policy's Operation Classification Found Ambiguous

    New Jersey Supreme Court Holding Impacts Allocation of Damages in Cases Involving Successive Tortfeasors

    Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when General Contractor Does Not

    An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

    California Court of Appeal Clarifies Intent of Faulty Workmanship Exclusions

    Illinois Legislature Enables Pre-Judgment Interest in Personal Injury Cases

    Quick Note: Discretion in Determining Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in 2021 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!

    Digital Twins – Interview with Cristina Savian

    More Business Value from Drones with Propeller and Trimble – Interview with Rory San Miguel

    Prevailing Parties Entitled to Contractual Attorneys’ Fees Under California CCP §1717 Notwithstanding Declaration That Contract is Void Under California Government Code §1090

    Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Preclude Coverage

    Sinking Floor Does Not Meet Strict Definition of Collapse

    New York Philharmonic Will Open Geffen Hall Two Years Ahead of Schedule

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers!

    Hunton Offers Amicus Support in First Circuit Review of “Surface Water” Under Massachusetts Law

    Courts Will Not Second-Guess Public Entities When it Comes to Design Immunity

    Spreading Cracks On FIU Bridge Failed to Alarm Project Team

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    Incorporate Sustainability in Building Design to Meet Green Construction Goals

    After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

    New York Court Rules on Architect's Duty Under Contract and Tort Principles

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (03/01/23) – Mass Timber, IIJA Funding, and Distressed Real Estate

    Florida’s “Groundbreaking” Property Insurance Reform Law

    Hunton Insurance Partner, Larry Bracken, Elected to the American College of Coverage Counsel

    Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

    Court Again Defines Extent of Contractor’s Insurance Coverage

    North Carolina, Tennessee Prepare to Start Repairing Helene-damaged Interstates

    Not to Miss at This Year’s Archtober Festival

    Exponential Acceleration—Interview with Anders Hvid

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

    2013 May Be Bay Area’s Best Year for Commercial Building

    How Helsinki Airport Uses BIM to Create the Best Customer Experience

    Can an Architect, Hired by an Owner, Be Sued by the General Contractor?

    NY Project Produces America's First Utility Scale Wind Power

    Determining Duty to Defend in Wisconsin Does Not Include Extrinsic Evidence

    Courthouse Reporter Series: The Travails of Statutory Construction...Defining “Labor” under the Miller Act

    Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back

    Savannah Homeowners Win Sizable Judgment in Mold Case against HVAC Contractor

    It Has Started: Supply-Chain, Warehouse and Retail Workers of Essential Businesses Are Filing Suit
    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

    Collapse Claim Fails Due To Defectively Designed Roof and Deck

    May 28, 2024 —
    The insured's claim for collapse of his roof and deck failed due to defective design and other exclusions under the policy. Dudar v. State Farm & Cas. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52706 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 6, 2024). The insured submitted a claim to State Farm for damage to the roof ("Roof Claim"). State Farm's adjuster placed a ladder on the deck to access the roof and a portion of the deck collapsed. The insured then reported a claim to State Farm for damage to the deck ("Deck Claim"). The claims were denied and suit was filed. The roof had leaked on several occasions prior to submission of the Roof Claim. On February 25, 2022, the insured discovered that a branch had cut a hole in the tarp, causing water to leak into the home. The insured performed repairs on the roof. On March 8, 2022, a storm caused more water to seep through the tarp into the ceilings and walls. Thereafter, the Roof Claim was submitted. The damage from the leaking roof and the deck collapse were caused by rotting. The rotting, in turn, was caused by a combination of defective building design and resulting water damage from rain and storms over the years. The roof and deck were constructed to provide mutual support to one another. The roof did not contain an adequate slope, which caused water to seep down into the walls and flooring rather than to flow downward and away from the property. Over time, penetrating water caused portions of the roof, the floor, and the supporting wall between the roof and deck to rot. 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

    U.S. Navy Sailors Sue Tokyo Utility Company Over Radiation Poisoning

    April 09, 2014 —
    In a one billion dollar lawsuit, U.S. Navy sailors contend that they “suffered massive doses of radiation” from the Fukushima Dia-ichi nuclear power plant in Toyko, Japan while stationed on the USS Ronald Reagan, reported the Orange County Register. A tsunami (caused by a 9.0 earthquake) flooded the plant, “cutting off electrical power and disabling backup generators.” The USS Reagan was sent to provide aid, but the plant then “blew up” before they arrived. “Sailors on the flight deck said they felt a warm gust of air, followed by a sudden snow storm: radioactive steam,” according to the Orange County Register. “Freezing in the cold Pacific air. Blanketing their ship.” However, the Orange County Register posed the question, “Could the Reagan – one of the most advanced nuclear aircraft carriers in the U.S. fleet – really not know that it was being showered with massive doses of radiation?” TEPCO, the company being sued by the sailors, answered that it’s “wholly implausible.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Labor Under the Miller Act And Estoppel of Statute of Limitations

    May 08, 2023 —
    If you want a case that goes into history of the federal Miller Act, check out the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal’s opinion in U.S. ex rel. Dickson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, 2023 WL 3083440 (4th Cir. 2023). While I am not going to delve into this history, it’s a worthwhile read. It is also a worthwhile read for two other points. First, it discusses what constitutes “labor” under the Miller Act. Second, it discusses doctrine of estoppel to prevent a surety from raising the statute of limitations to bar a Miller Act payment bond claim, which is a doctrine you do NOT want to rely on, as this case reinforces. Both of these points applicable to Miller Act claims are discussed below. This case dealt with a prime contractor renovating staircases that was terminated by the federal government. The prime contractor hired a professional engineer as its subcontractor to serve as its project manager and supervise labor on the project. The engineer/subcontractor also had “logistical and clerical duties, taking various field measurements, cleaning the worksite, moving tools and materials, and sometimes even watering the concrete himself.” Dickson, supra, at *1. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Insurer Not Required to Show Prejudice from an Insured’s Late Notice When the Parties Contract for a Specific Reporting Period

    September 09, 2019 —
    The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Firm’s insurer client on an issue of first impression in Texas. The issue before the trial court was whether, under Texas law, an insurer is required to demonstrate prejudice resulting from an insured’s failure to comply with an agreed term set in an endorsement to the parties’ insurance contract establishing a specific time limit for an insured to give the insurer notice of a claim. The case involved alleged damage to an insured’s commercial property from a hailstorm. The insured did not report the alleged loss to its insurer until approximately 17 months after the date of loss. The insurer denied the claim based on a one-year notice requirement in a policy endorsement. The Texas Windstorm or Hail Loss Conditions Amendment Endorsement stated that:
    In addition to your obligation to provide us with prompt notice of loss or damage, with respect to any claim where notice of the claim is reported to us more than one year after the reported date of loss or damage, this policy shall not provide coverage for such claims.
    The insured sued the insurer in Houston federal court, alleging causes of action for breach of contract and violations of the Texas Insurance Code. The insured argued the insurer was required to show prejudice from the insured’s late notice; the insurer argued that a showing of prejudice was not required. The trial court recognized that this issue had not been decided by the Texas Supreme Court of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Raney, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Raney may be contacted at craney@grsm.com

    Construction Law: Unexpected, Fascinating, Bizarre

    April 25, 2012 —

    Guy Randles offers an amusing set of odd construction law cases in the Daily Journal of Commerce, which he describes as “the unexpected, the fascinating and even the bizarre.” He noted that in one case “a whistleblower claimed he was terminated for reporting to the owner that the contractor’s painters had not applied the required coating thickness.” The whistleblower was the project manager and “was responsible for ensuring the proper coating thickness.”

    A less amusing case was that of an architect who was arrested for manslaughter. Gerard Baker “told investigators that the considered the fireplaces to be merely decorative.” Randles notes that “the mansion’s fireplaces were built of wood framing and lined with combustible drywall.” Further, a “gas fireplace even vented into the house’s interior.” Building officials called the house “a death trap.” According to the LA police chief this may be the only case in which building defects lead to a manslaughter charge.

    Read the full story…

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

    Augmented and Mixed Reality in Construction

    July 28, 2016 —
    Augmented reality (AR) and mixed reality (MR) are in the headlines, thanks to the recent mobile gaming boom. How are these emerging technologies applicable to construction? In this blog post, I present six application areas to consider. In AR—like Google Glass or Pokémon GO on a mobile device—the visible natural world is overlaid with a layer of digital content. In MR technologies, like Microsoft’s HoloLens or Magic Leap, virtual objects are integrated into and responsive to the natural world. In my earlier post, I wrote about virtual reality (VR), where the real world is replaced by a computer-generated environment. All the virtual technologies are still in relatively early stages of development. However, they already demonstrate the potential to change how we design, build, commercialize, and use the built environment. I brainstormed six application areas for AR and MR in construction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aarni@aepartners.fi

    Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits

    July 19, 2017 —
    The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed that Nationwide acted in bad faith by refusing to settle a claim against its insured for the policy limits, exposing the policyholder to an excess verdict.1 The case arose out of a 2005 automobile accident where Seung Park, who was insured by Nationwide, struck and killed another driver, Stacey Camacho. Shortly after the accident, Ms. Camacho’s estate issued a time-limited demand for the full limits of the policy Nationwide issued to Mr. Park, $100,000, to settle the case. After the deadline to respond to the demand expired, Nationwide rejected the demand and made a counteroffer. A settlement could not be reached and a wrongful death suit was filed against Mr. Park, resulting in a massive jury verdict of $5.83 million. Following the jury verdict, Mr. Park assigned his rights against Nationwide to Ms. Camacho’s estate, which then filed claims for negligence and bad faith failure to settle against Nationwide. The case was tried to a jury, which found in favor of the estate. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bethany Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com

    Privity Problems Continue for Additional Insureds in the Second Circuit

    November 08, 2017 —
    On October 4, the Second Circuit held that Harleysville Insurance Company had no duty to defend or indemnify a project owner or general contractor as additional insureds under a sub-subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy due to lack of direct contractual privity. 1 The underlying claim arose when an employee of The Kimmell Company, Inc. (Kimmell) was injured while repairing an HVAC system at a building owned by the University of Rochester Medical Center (UR). The injured employee sought damages for his injuries and fi led suit against (1) UR; (2) LeChase Construction Corp. (LeChase), the general contractor for the project; and (3) J.T. Mauro Co. Inc. (Mauro), a subcontractor hired by LeChase. Mauro hired Kimmell as a sub-subcontractor to perform HVAC services at the project. The Mauro-Kimmel contract required Kimmel to add Mauro, UR, and LeChase as additional insureds under Kimmell’s CGL policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Samantha M. Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Martino may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com