BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil 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


    Cross-Office Team Secures Defense Verdict in Favor of Client in Asbestos Case

    Client Alert: Service Via Tag Jurisdiction Insufficient to Subject Corporation to General Personal Jurisdiction

    Gordie Howe Bridge Project Team Looks for a Third Period Comeback

    Not a Waiver for All: Maryland Declines to Apply Subrogation Waiver to Subcontractors

    Dear Engineer: Has your insurer issued a “Reservation of Rights” letter? (law note)

    The Dangers of an Unlicensed Contractor from Every Angle

    Will COVID-19 Permanently Shift the Balance between Work from Home and the Workplace?

    2018 California Construction Law Update

    Insured's Failure to Prove Entire Collapse of Building Leads to Dismissal

    The Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter – A Year in Review

    Rise in Single-Family Construction Anticipated in Michigan

    Chinese Drywall Manufacturer Claims Product Was Not for American Market

    London's Walkie Talkie Tower Voted Britain's Worst New Building

    No Coverage For Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Circuit Court Lacks Appellate Jurisdiction Over Order Compelling Appraisal

    Eleven Payne & Fears Attorneys Honored by Best Lawyers

    Greg Dillion & Newmeyer Dillion Named 2019 Good Scout Award Recipient

    Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That’s Not the Most Interesting Part

    Atlanta Hawks Billionaire Owner Plans $5 Billion Downtown Transformation

    Road Project to Improve Access to Peru's Machu Picchu Site

    Insurer Must Pay Portions of Arbitration Award Related to Faulty Workmanship

    Steel-Fiber Concrete Link Beams Perform Well in Tests

    Thoughts on New Pay if Paid Legislation

    Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

    Insured's Jury Verdict Reversed After Improper Trial Tactics

    Make Sure to Properly Perfect and Preserve Construction Lien Rights

    No Coverage for Collapse of Building

    Safeguarding the U.S. Construction Industry from Unfair Competition Abroad

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

    Construction Defect Disputes: Know Your Measure of Damages!!!!!

    A Year After Fatal Genoa Viaduct Collapse, Replacement Takes Shape

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

    Manhattan Home Prices Top Pre-Crisis Record on Luxury Deals

    Fire Consultants Cannot Base Opinions on Speculation

    Yellen Has Scant Power to Relieve U.S. Housing Slowdown

    Hail Damage Requires Replacement of Even Undamaged Siding

    No Additional Insured Coverage Under Umbrella Policy

    Condemnation Actions: How Valuable Is Your Evidence of Property Value?

    US Supreme Court Backs Panama Canal Owner in Dispute with Builders

    Chinese Hunt for Trophy Properties Boosts NYC, London Prices

    Hawaii Court Finds No Bad Faith, But Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Survives Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Action

    Georgia Court of Appeals Upholds Denial of Coverage Because Insurance Broker Lacked Agency to Accept Premium Payment

    Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

    Restaurant Wants SCOTUS to Dust Off Eleventh Circuit’s “Physical Loss” Ruling

    Court of Appeals Upholds Default Judgment: Serves as Reminder to Respond to Lawsuits in a Timely Manner

    White House Hopefuls Make Pitches to Construction Unions

    Client Alert: Catch Me If You Can – Giorgio Is No Gingerbread Man

    Microwave Transmission of Space-Based Solar Power: The Focus of New Attention

    Court of Appeal Holds Only “Named Insureds” May Sue for Bad Faith Under California FAIR Plan Policy

    Peru’s Former President and His Wife to Stay in Jail After Losing Appeal
    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

    The Show Must Go On: Shuttered Venues Operators Grant Provides Lifeline for Live Music and Theater Venues

    March 29, 2021 —
    Although it’s been a tough twelve months for many live music venues, movie theaters, and performing arts organizations, help may finally be around the corner. On December 27, 2020, the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act was signed into law, creating a $15 billion fund for grants to shuttered venues to be administered by the Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) Office of Disaster Assistance. The law states that Shuttered Venues Operator Grants (“SVOGs”) will be made available to the following entities and individuals:
    1. Live venue operators or promoters;
    2. Theatrical producers;
    3. Live performing arts organization operators;
    4. Relevant museum operators, zoos, and aquariums which meet specific criteria;
    5. Movie theater operators;
    6. Talent representatives; and
    7. Each business entity owned by an eligible entity that also meets the eligibility requirements.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Rao, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Rao may be contacted at drao@swlaw.com

    Connecticut Appellate Court Breaks New Ground on Policy Exhaustion

    April 26, 2021 —
    The Connecticut Appellate Court recently issued a wide-ranging opinion, Continental Casualty Co. v. Rohr, Inc.,[1] which significantly extended the current restrictive view on when a general liability policy can be considered exhausted so as to trigger overlying excess coverage. The case marks a further step away from Judge Augustus Hand’s almost-century-old ruling in Zeig v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.,[2] which held that an underlying policy could be “exhausted” by a below-limits settlement as long as the insured was willing to “fill the gap” between the settlement amount and the limits of the policy.[3] In recent years, courts in California and elsewhere have increasingly walked back Zeig’s broad ruling – holding in Qualcomm v. Certain Underwriters,[4] for example, that an insured’s below-limits settlement with primary carriers does not exhaust the limits of primary coverage, or allow the insured to access overlying excess coverage.[5] Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case Triggered by Complaint's Allegations

    August 20, 2014 —
    The subcontractor's insurer could not escape contributing to defense costs of its insured when coverage was possible based upon the underlying complaint's allegations. Seneca Ins. Co. v. James River Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97156 (D. Ore. July 17, 2014). The underlying action alleged construction defects in a 60-unit complex located in Seaside, Oregon. S.D. Deacon Corp. was the general contractor and contracted with the owners association to reconstruct portions of the building, including the curtain wall. Deacon subcontracted with Superwall Design, LLP for work on the curtain wall renovation. At some point not specified in the underlying complaint, the Association notified Deacon of construction defects in the curtain wall renovation. Deacon investigated and concluded that the alleged property damage was the result of inadequate usage of materials, violations of state and local building codes, and violations of relevant industry standards relating to the work performed by Superwall. Deacon contended that the problems were caused by Superwall's faulty workmanship. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    New York Court Finds No Coverage Owed for Asbestos Losses Because Insured Failed to Prove Material Terms

    February 15, 2021 —
    In the long-tail insurance context, it is not unusual to have issues arise addressing “lost” or “missing” policies. In an opinion issued on January 22, 2021, a New York court ruled that an insurer did not owe coverage to its insured for underlying asbestos claims because the insured had failed to establish the material terms of a “lost” policy under which it sought coverage for the underlying claims. The lawsuit, Cosmopolitan Shipping Company, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Company,[1] arose out of a coverage dispute between Plaintiff Cosmopolitan Shipping Co., Inc. (Cosmopolitan) and its insurance carrier, Continental Insurance Company (CIC), in connection with bodily injury claims arising out of asbestos exposure. The case provides a good analysis of what an insured must do to establish coverage under a “lost” or “missing” policy. During and after World War II, Cosmopolitan chartered and operated a number of shipping vessels on behalf of United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA). In the 1980s, seamen who had worked on board Cosmopolitan’s vessels between 1946 and 1948 filed lawsuits against Cosmopolitan seeking damages for injuries arising out of alleged exposure to asbestos on Cosmopolitan’s vessels. Cosmopolitan sought coverage from CIC for the claims, alleging that CIC had insured Cosmopolitan’s vessels during the relevant time period under a protection and indemnity policy issued to the UNRAA (the P&I Policy). Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Marianne E. Bradley, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Condo Board Goes after Insurer for Construction Defect Settlement

    February 07, 2013 —
    The City Bella on Lyndale homeowners association settled with the high rise's developer and builder for $1.9 million over construction defects. The defects included structural deterioration in the project's pool area, extensive air and water leaks in the windows, and structural problems in the project's underground parking garage. City Bella consists of a 15-story tower and a four-story building on Lyndale Avenue in Minneapolis. They settled the lawsuit in 2011, but the homeowners association is still looking to the insurers to pay up. With legal fees and interest, the total rises to $2.82 million that Travelers could be paying the association. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    July 11, 2011 —

    The Illinois Court of Appeals determined the insurer must defend allegations of property damage arising from faulty workmanship. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. v. J.P. Larsen, Inc., 2011 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1443 (Ill. Ct. App. June, 20, 2011).

    Larsen was a subcontractor for Weather-Tite in a condominium building. Weather-Tite installed windows on the project and hired Larsen to apply sealant to the windows. The windows subsequently leaked and caused water damage within the complex.

    The homeowner’s association sued Weather-Tite for breach of express and implied warranties. Weather-Tite filed a third-party complaint against Larsen, seeking contribution and alleging that Larsen was in breach of contract by failing to add Weather-Tite as an additional insured under Larsen’s CGL policy.

    Both Weather-Tite and Larsen tendered to Larsen’s insurer. Both tenders were denied because the insurer contended the complaints alleged only construction defects, and not “property damage” or an “occurrence” within the terms of the policy.

    The insurer filed suit for a declaratory judgment. The trial court granted the insurer’s motion as to Weather-Tite, but granted Larsen’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Corporate Formalities: A Necessary Part of Business

    February 18, 2020 —
    Many benefits exist in choosing to create a corporation or limited liability company (“LLC”) as your business entity. However, what attracts most people to these entities is the protection they afford the business owner(s) against personal liability for the business’ obligations, debts, and other liabilities. Whatever reason prompts your decision to form a corporation or LLC, if you are like many smaller businesses, once the formation process is over its back to business as usual. However, in order to keep the protection against personal liability associated with a corporation or LLC, the business must engage in, what are known as corporate formalities. Corporate formalities are formal actions that must be taken by a corporation or LLC in order to maintain the benefits associated with that business entity. These corporate formalities may be required under California law, by the bylaws, and/or by the operating agreement of your business. When your business is formed as a corporation, many of the corporate formalities exist as part of California’s Corporations Code (“CCC”). These formalities include: (1) holding annual meetings (CCC § 600); (2) regularly electing directors (CCC § 301); (3) keeping meeting minutes (CCC § 1500); and (4) maintaining accurate corporate records (CCC § 1500). While these are only a few of the corporate formalities existing for corporations in the State of California, these formalities are often overlooked or put off by smaller businesses because they are either unknown to the business or are intended to be complied with later, as the actual running of the business takes priority. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hannah Kreuser, Porter Law Group
    Ms. Kreuser may be contacted at hkreuser@porterlaw.com

    California Supreme Court Rejects Third Exception to Privette Doctrine

    July 03, 2022 —
    Walnut Creek, Calif. (May 25, 2022) - In Gonzalez v. Mathis (August 19, 2021) 12 Cal. 5th 29, the California Supreme Court considered whether to create a third exception to the Privette Doctrine specific to known hazards on a worksite, when a contractor cannot remedy the hazard by taking reasonable safety precautions to protect against it. Privette Background Under the Privette Doctrine, the hirer of an independent contractor generally cannot be liable for injuries sustained by the independent contractor or its employees while on the job. This is due to the “strong presumption” that the hirer delegates all responsibility for workplace safety to the independent contractor. See Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 689. Since the Privette ruling in 1993, the California Supreme Court has identified two circumstances in which the presumption may be overcome. First, the hirer may be liable when it retains control over any part of the independent contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury. Hooker v. Dept. of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 198, 213. Second, a landowner who hires an independent contractor may be liable if the landowner knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard to the property that the contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered, and the landowner failed to warn the contractor of the hazard. Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal. 4th 659, 664. Here, in the Gonzalez case, the court considered whether a landowner could be liable for known hazards on the property. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois